Social media bias BS

===

primary 7 22 as favorite PC cancels silence BS variant:MYTH PENDING BUT REALLY EXTENSION OF LIB MAINSTREAM BIAS PLUS JEWISH BLK BOX ALGO ETERNAL TRUE VICTIM

SEE BRENDAN CARR FCC 2025 MUSK PAL

see ban de-platform

merri ok

see benghazi weaponization fail

see open border BS facebook meta

see section 230 reform BS CRC

see twitter file BS

SEE BAILEY LANDRY DOUGHERTY BS CASE

see acad suppress

see twit 4 elon

see benghazi BS jordan weaponiz

maybe belated disambig: new spin on old liberal media bias claim,just on Internet/social media (b/c sil vly is in Pelosi socialist CA bay area)

[note soc sci proves tho gingrich skewed public opinion polls, actually opposite [see cdv on false balance/ access jrnl ]

ie our msg does not get out /win b/c dark secret forces have silenced us PC 3 cancel culture

fox hosts trump etc have tried to herd to sep more profitable platforms with no mod/filter --> earth 2, no accountability b/c free sp 1st amend

see JOK  see twit 4

see stew peters wacko BS execute fry traitors

===

Hunter Biden laptop controversy - Wikipedia

---

REBOOT?

DRILLED 9 26 --> ALT RT TECH BRO MUSK ~ DISINFO

//

DK 9 26

Business Today

EU prepares landmark $1 billion fine against Musk's X over disinformation, citing Digital Services Act violations

1 year ago**Europe's** crackdown on Big **Tech** is zeroing in on Elon **Musk's** X, as regulators prepare a billion-dollar fine for breaking tough new digital laws.

Channel NewsAsia Singapore

X hit by complaints to EU over user data and targeted advertising

1 year agoBRUSSELS :Elon **Musk's** X social media platform has been hit by complaints by nine civil society organisations to **EU** and French regulators over what they say is its use of users' data for targeted advertising that may breach **EU tech** rules. The organisations - AI Forensics, the Centre for Democracy and Technolog

Reuters on Yahoo

-=-=

-=-=

ding dong?

-=-=

By Brandy Zadrozny

Aug. 25, 2026,

For 17 months, the State Department has promised to deliver proof of a long-promoted conspiracy theory about its own agency: that its officials routinely censored conservative Americans. This week, it failed that mission, as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers released a trove of documents that proved nothing.

The conspiracy theory has grown during President Donald Trump’s second term, providing the State Department with a rationale for dismantling the offices that once studied and countered foreign disinformation campaigns, for firing officials with decades of experience and for shuttering entire departments.

The effort was first led by acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie, a former far-right academic who had been fired from the first Trump administration after he attended a white nationalist conference. Beattie claimed the DOGE-style decimation of the State Department was necessary to rid the agency of officials who were tied to a baseless conspiracy theory known as the “censorship-industrial complex.”

Promoters of the censorship-industrial complex — a secret but somehow sprawling partnership between the Biden government, journalists, academics and civil society groups, aimed at silencing conservative Americans — have repeatedly failed to prove their case, in congressional investigations and in the courts, including the Supreme Court. Still, the theory persists.

Beattie had no evidence for his unfounded claims that the State Department had participated in that conspiracy, but in March 2025, he launched an investigation inside the State Department that he said would reveal all. Beattie requested the files, emails and other communications of State Department officials, including any records with seemingly random keywords like “Black Lives Matter,” “great replacement theory” and “Pepe the Frog,” as well as any communications with figures Beattie believed to be part of the conspiracy. (These included The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, Bill Gates, disinformation researcher Nina Jankowicz and some 60 others, including this reporter.)

In the official announcement for the closure of the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub, formerly known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC), Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Mike Benz, a former pseudonymous racist YouTuber and chief architect of the censorship-industrial complex theory, that a reckoning was coming. It would be driven by evidence, disclosed in the model of the “Twitter Files,” a 2022 dump of internal Twitter records that Elon Musk gave to selected writers to show the alleged censorship of conservatives. (It didn’t.)

Rubio said the job now was to “document what happened.”

“Because one thing is to say it in a broadcast like this, another thing is to actually put it on paper,” he said.

This week, Rogers, Beattie’s replacement, finally had something to share.

According to a series of posts on X, some since deleted, Rogers messaged Jennica Pounds, a self-described analyst who goes by the moniker Data Republican, known for creating massive, if amateur, data troves used to allege government waste, fraud and abuse, which made her a favorite of Musk’s.

Pounds said she thought Rogers was handing documents about Cuba, but got “shoved a bunch of hard copy documents to leak” about the GEC.

“I wanted to give you the option of ‘breaking’ the story as sort of a gift,” Rogers told her, according to a direct message that Pounds posted.

Then things got weird. Pounds has been a reliable vector for the Trump administration to push its narrative that a so-called deep state, or shadow government, was operating in secret and against the best interests of its citizens. But when she received the State Department’s “gift,” Pounds determined that it was a plot by Rogers to entrap her into committing a crime, asserting that releasing or reporting on the documents would be illegal.

Rogers responded “lol” and released the documents herself in a series of 35 posts that borrowed the breathless cadence of the Twitter Files, drawing ominous connections between GEC emails, international projects to combat foreign disinformation, and nongovernmental coalitions. It all implied the existence of a censorship-industrial-complex operation — without proving it. Rogers’ document dump got little attention from right-wing media.

More articles

Team Trump turns on contractor after it failed to bolster election conspiracy theory

Steve Benen

Resigning labor secretary falsely claims there was a ‘deep state’ conspiracy against her

Steve Benen

“There were State Department employees sharing news articles. Diplomats had communicated with foreign governments. And somewhere in the rubble was a project examining ‘gendered disinformation’ that had been — wait for it — announced at the Summit for Democracy and published on the State Department website,” former senior foreign service officer Orna Blum wrote sarcastically on Substack.

Pounds seemed to agree with the former State Department official.

“The actual documents were nothingburgers,” she posted.

Neither the State Department nor Pounds responded to requests for comment.

The debacle may show that the half-decade of unproven censorship claims has exhausted their audience.

“The under secretary is yet again twisting decontextualized snippets of emails and long-public documents to try to propagate a conspiracy theory,” said Renée DiResta, an associate research professor at Georgetown University. As the former research manager for the Stanford Internet Observatory, DiResta has long been a boogeyman of the censorship-industrial complex theory.

“The mass censorship claims were a hoax,” DiResta said.

Over the weekend, some of the State officials pushed out in last year’s purge lit up Signal chats, commenting on Rogers’ rollout of the long-promised proof of the conspiracy that had cost them their jobs and hollowed out the agency where they had spent their careers. One former senior official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told MS NOW: “In the end, it’s not the greatest consolation on earth to find out that the people who wrecked 10 years of your work and your career are a bunch of galaxy-level dipshits.”

The release did reveal something, however: an unintentional revelation about an undisclosed relationship between a federal agency and Pounds, a professed independent researcher who has often criticized others, without evidence, of being “a fed.”

In her posts, Pounds alleged that Rogers was trying to threaten her employment, revealing along the way that since July she had been a special government employee of the Department of Defense. Before that, Pounds had been provided credentials as a member of the Pentagon’s hollowed-out press corps.

A Defense Department official confirmed her employment but declined to give further details.

Brandy Zadrozny

Brandy Zadrozny is a senior enterprise reporter for MS NOW.

-=-=-

WIRED

Makena Kelly

Politics Nov 20, 2024

Trump’s FCC Pick Wants to Be the Speech Police. That’s Not His Job

Brendan Carr wrote the Project 2025 chapter on the Federal Communications Commission. Now Donald Trump has tapped him to run the agency.}:

:{Brendan Carr at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, wants to refashion the broadband regulator into the nation’s speech police on social platforms.

As FCC chair, Carr would set the agency’s agenda on issues like broadband deployment, net neutrality, and telecom privacy. But since Carr was nominated as a commissioner in 2017 by Trump, he’s spent much of his time focusing on contentious internet speech rules that the agency has historically never played a role in. Without a massive regulatory overhaul from Congress or the courts, passing his agenda would be an uphill battle.

In a Sunday statement appointing Carr, Trump called him “a warrior for Free Speech” who will “end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America’s Job Creators.” Thanking Trump, Carr wrote on X, “We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.”

Carr authored the Project 2025 chapter on the FCC, writing that the agency needed to prioritize issues like “reining in Big tech” and “promoting national security.” Specifically on his to-do list, Carr says that the FCC should issue an order that reinterprets Section 230 to eliminate the “expansive” liability immunities it provides to social platforms. Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996, which protects internet companies from being sued over content that appears on their platforms and has given companies the ability to decide what content can or cannot be posted.

But there is no precedent for the FCC governing online speech, and experts tell WIRED that the agency has no authority to act on Trump and Carr’s speech prescriptions.

“This is a radical view that they can somehow do something about Section 230 at the FCC,” says Chris Lewis, president and CEO at Public Knowledge, a progressive tech advocacy group.

In his Project 2025 write-up, Carr specifically argues that companies should allow users to personalize their own content filters and that platforms should remove only illegal user-generated content. Carr has also forged a relationship with X owner Elon Musk, who has also suggested that platforms like his own should only take down unlawful content like child abuse imagery. (Carr appeared with Musk and Trump at a Tuesday SpaceX launch.)

“What he can do and wants to do is use his bully pulpit to bully companies that moderate content in a way he doesn’t like,” says Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights advocacy group. “And if he continues to do that, he's very likely to run smack into the First Amendment, which, contrary to misconception, is the real thing that protects online speech.” Section 230 protects social media companies from being sued over the content users post on their platforms, while the First Amendment explicitly bars the government from interfering in someone’s ability to exercise free speech. Over the summer, the Supreme Court ruled that a company’s moderation decisions are protected under the First Amendment.

As for Section 230, the Supreme Court may have just made it more difficult for administrative agencies like the FCC to reinterpret it to their liking. Over the summer, the court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), a decision that had allowed for government agencies to independently interpret their authorities. With the Chevron deference made moot, it could be an uphill battle for the FCC to make its own interpretations of the law.

“Agencies are basically losing the ability to interpret how they can enforce when language is vague in the statute,” says Lewis. “Section 230’s language is actually very short and very straightforward and has no FCC action attached to it.” If Carr decided to issue a rule modifying Section 230, it would likely be met with legal challenges. Still, Republicans currently control all three branches of government and could either rule in the administration’s favor or pass new legislation putting the FCC as the top cop on the beat.

Trump has tried to deputize the FCC into policing online speech before. In 2020, Trump signed an executive order instructing the FCC to begin a rule-making process to reinterpret when Section 230 would apply to social platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The Center for Democracy and Technology, which receives funding from big tech companies, challenged the order as unconstitutional, saying that it unfairly punished X, then known as Twitter, “to chill the constitutionally protected speech of all online platforms and individuals.”

Months later, FCC general counsel Tom Johnson published a blog post arguing that the agency has the authority to reinterpret the foundational internet law. A few days after that, then FCC chairman Ajit Pai announced that the agency would move forward on a rule-making process, but no rule was ordered before President Joe Biden’s inauguration, giving Democrats control over agency decisions.

“It was ignored and rejected, basically,” says Lewis.

Democratic FCC members called the Section 230 directive “politically motivated and legally unsound.” At the time, current FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said, “The FCC has no business being the president’s speech police.”

Concerns over Carr’s leadership at the commission extend beyond regulating social media moderation. In Carr’s Project 2025 chapter, he said that the agency should not only target internet companies over censorship concerns, but TV and radio broadcasters as well. Trump has regularly threatened or sued media outlets over negative coverage. Just this week, the former president sued The New York Times and Penguin Random House for alleged bias.

In recent letters and statements, Carr appears eager to get to work. When Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on Saturday Night Live earlier this month, Carr floated the idea of revoking NBC’s broadcasting license, something that is in the FCC’s control.

“This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule,” Carr wrote on X at the time. Carr also recently suggested that the FCC could go after 60 Minutes over a complaint that the program violated the agency’s news distortion rule by editing an interview with Kamala Harris. CBS News maintains that the clip was an honest depiction of Harris’ answer. Carr said this week that the FCC would examine the complaint as it reviews a proposed merger between Skydance and Paramount global, CBS’s parent company.

Carr has also taken Musk’s side in regulatory issues the Starlink maker has before the FCC. In a dissenting statement on the FCC’s decision to bar Starlink from broadband subsidies, Carr equated the agency’s actions to “regulatory harassment.” With a Republican majority and Carr as FCC chair, he would have more control over which internet companies receive federal funding.

It remains unclear exactly how Carr would pursue changes to Section 230 and if they would survive legal scrutiny. But if the agency cannot go after online speech, Carr’s chairmanship could be defined more by what it decided not to do in place of what it couldn’t.

“He wants to abdicate his responsibility running an agency that's supposed to protect the public from exploitation, greed, and abuse of big telecom companies by pointing his finger and waving over there at this other set of companies that he doesn't actually have any meaningful authority to regulate,” says Greer.

---

===

note basis in soc media bias BS

win win win

mma 1 25

Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Joel Kaplan go on right-wing media tour, promoting policy rollbacks and currying favor with Trump

Zuckerberg and Kaplan both took to conservative outlets to blast Biden’s tech regulations, complain about so-called “censorship,” and praise Trump

Written by Jack Wheatley

Research contributions from Noah Dowe

Published 01/16/25 mma

Following Meta’s announcement of significant policy rollbacks — which include “scrapping” fact-checking in the U.S. “entirely” and loosening content moderation — the company’s founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and the company’s new chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, have been making the rounds in right-wing media.

During these right-wing media appearances, which come ahead of Trump’s return to the White House, Zuckerberg and Kaplan praised Trump as “a real opportunity for us to push forward on free expression everywhere around the world” and complained about previous content moderation policies, saying they were “too restrictive,” likening them to “censorship,” and placing the blame on a supposed “heavy-handed” Biden “regime.”

Meta capitulates to false right-wing claims of censorship and rolls back content moderation policies

• • On January 7, Meta announced significant changes to its existing content moderation policies across all of its platforms — eliminating third-party fact-checking and removing several crucial content moderation policies. Instead of third-party fact checkers, Meta said it would move toward a system of community notes, shifting responsibility for reining in misinformation on its platforms away from the company. In his video announcement, Zuckerberg justified the changes by claiming that “the recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.” Meta, [1/7/25; Media Matters, 1/7/25]

* Notably, both the substance of Meta’s new policy changes and the messaging behind their rollout signal a direct appeal to the incoming Trump administration and MAGA media. For years, conservative media personalities have painted themselves as defenders of free speech while falsely claiming that social media companies were censoring their views. Media Matters and others have repeatedly debunked these claims. Media Matters, [1/7/25]

• • Following the announcement, Meta began making significant content moderation changes. These changes included replacing the term “Hate Speech” in its community standards with “Hateful Conduct,” and allowing posts referring to transgender people as “it,” comparing women to “household objects,” and alleging “mental illness … based on gender or sexual orientation.” Notably, Meta allowed a variety of previously restricted content which dehumanizes women, LGBTQ people, and immigrants, among others. Meta, accessed [1/15/25; The Verge, 1/7/25]

• • To roll out the policy changes, Kaplan — who is a former GOP political operative — gave an exclusive interview onFox & Friends. Zuckerberg’s announcement video was also reportedly first shared with Fox News. The New York Times, [1/2/25; CNN, 1/7/25; The Washington Post, 2/20/20; Media Matters, 9/9/20]

• • After his Fox News appearance, Kaplan also joined conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt’s show, and Zuckerberg appeared as a guest on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Salem Radio Network, *The Hugh Hewitt Show*,[; YouTube, The Joe Rogan Experience,]

* ## Joel Kaplan gave an exclusive interview to Fox, detailing policy changes and emphasizing how Meta wants to “work with President Trump”

• • On the January 7 episode ofFox & Friends, Kaplan discussed Meta’s policy changes, calling them “a great opportunity for us to reset the balance in favor of free expression” and “getting back to our roots and free expression.” Kaplan immediately noted Meta’s decision to eliminate third-party fact-checking, claiming there has “just been too much political bias in what they choose to fact-check and how, so we’re just scrapping it entirely.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [1/7/25]

• • Additionally, Kaplan called the previous content moderation policies — which included the company's hate speech policy — “too restrictive,” and adopted right-wing rhetoric by comparing standards designed to protect vulnerable groups to “censorship.” He stated that “people want to discuss and debate” things like “immigration, trans issues, gender,” and also claimed, “We want to make it so that, bottom line, if you can say it on TV, you can say it on the floor of Congress, you certainly ought to be able to say it on Facebook and Instagram without fear of censorship. So we’re changing those rules.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [1/7/25]

• • Kaplan praised the incoming Trump administration, calling them “big defenders of free expression” and contrasting them to so-called “societal and political pressure” for “more content moderation, more censorship” over the last 4 years. Kaplan: “We’ve got a real opportunity now. We’ve got a new administration and a new president coming in who are big defenders of free expression and that makes a difference.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [1/7/25]

• • He went on to complain about pressure from governments abroad and promised, “We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on that kind of thing around the world.” Kaplan: “One of the things that we experienced, is that when you have a U.S. president administration that’s pushing for censorship, it just makes it open season for other governments around the world that don't even have the protections of the First Amendment to really put pressure on U.S. companies.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [1/7/25]

• • Kaplan said Trump is “really focused on making sure that we maintain U.S. competitiveness and leadership on technology, things like AI,” describing them as “obviously super important to our company and our industry and we’ll look forward to working with the new administration to advance those goals.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [1/7/25]

• ## Kaplan also went on Hugh Hewitt’s show, attacking Biden and fawning over Trump

• • On January 8 — the day after Meta’s announcement — Kaplan appeared on conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt’s show to promote the changes to Meta policies, saying that “people are ready for a return to the values of free expression.” [Salem Radio Network, The Hugh Hewitt Show, 1/8/25]

• • As he did in his appearance on Fox News, Kaplan described Meta’s third-party fact-checking system as “too politically biased.” Salem Radio Network, *The Hugh Hewitt Show*, [1/8/25]

• • Kaplan said that Meta was “looking forward to … working with President Trump” to fight regulation of Meta abroad, complaining that other countries have “taken a much more aggressive approach through regulation to censorship online.” He went on to describe it as “a real opportunity for us to push forward on free expression everywhere around the world.” Salem Radio Network, *The Hugh Hewitt Show*, [1/8/25]

• • Lambasting the Biden administration’s regulation of social media companies, Kaplan called the administration a “heavy-handed regime.” He described the administration’s rules as “a real hindrance to growth” and said that tech companies should “be very optimistic that we're gonna come out from under this really heavy-handed regime that we've had over the last 4 years of just regulation across the board.” Salem Radio Network, *The Hugh Hewitt Show*, [1/8/25]

• ## Zuckerberg appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast, complaining about the Biden administration's supposed pressure and claiming Trump will defend Meta from EU regulations

• • In the January 10 appearance on Rogan’s podcast, Zuckerberg claimed that Biden’s administration has pressured Meta to remove claims about vaccine side effects that “honestly were true.”Zuckerberg: “They pushed us super hard.” YouTube, *The Joe Rogan Experience*, [1/10/25]

• • Praising Trump, Zuckerberg suggested, like Kaplan, that he’s “optimistic” that the incoming administration would shield tech companies from fines imposed by the European Union. Zuckerberg claimed that “the EU is basically, and all these other places, just free to just go to town on all the American companies and do whatever you want,” and added that “to some degree, if the U.S. tech industry is going to continue being really strong, I do think that the U.S. government has a role in, in basically defending it abroad. And that's one of the things that I'm optimistic about will happen in this administration.” YouTube, *The Joe Rogan Experience*, [1/10/25]

• • Zuckerberg claimed Trump “just wants America to win.” YouTube, *The Joe Rogan Experience*, [1/10/25]

• • While discussing his decision to add UFC CEO Dana White to Meta's board of directors, Zuckerberg praised White’s efforts to rebuild the UFC, and said he wants to utilize that strategy for Meta. He said that “we have a lot of governments and folks around the world putting a lot of pressure on our company, and, like, we need some, like, strong people who are gonna basically, you know, help advise us on how to handle some of these situations.” YouTube, *The Joe Rogan Experience*, [1/10/25]

• • Referencing competition from foreign governments on AI production, Zuckerberg complained about government oversight into Meta, and said “you could get a lot more done if the government were helping American companies rather than kind of slowing you down at every step along the way.” He went on to add that “it's easy for the government to take for granted that the U.S. will lead on all these things when I think it's a very close competition,” and that he would like the government to “be a force that's helping us to do these things.” YouTube, *The Joe Rogan Experience*, [1/10/25]

//

1. ### Zuckerberg and Meta are done pretending to care about mitigating the harms their platforms cause

01/07/25 6:32 PM EST

2. ### Media billionaires are cozying up to Trump as Meta slashes its content moderation policy

01/09/25 8:56 AM EST

3. ### Hate speech and misinformation proliferate on Meta products, with 13,500 policy violations documented in the past year alone

05/17/22

===

austin am st

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate in New York, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, declined to answer when asked whether he and former President Donald Trump would challenge the results of November’s election if they lost, as Trump did in 2020.

Instead, Vance pivoted to what he said was a much bigger threat to democracy: internet censorship.

"I believe that we actually do have a threat to democracy in this country. … It is the threat of censorship," Vance said.

Vance said Vice President Kamala Harris would "like to censor people who engage in misinformation." He said Harris "is engaged in censorship at an industrial scale. She did it during COVID. She’s done it over a number of other issues."

Then, during a back-and-forth exchange with Democratic vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vance said Harris "wants to use the power of government and big tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment."

Many PolitiFact readers asked what Vance was talking about when referring to Harris and censorship.

Vance sought to tie Harris to the Biden administration's efforts to push social media platforms to remove what it deemed to be false content about COVID-19 during the pandemic.

The White House declined to comment.

Republicans have long bemoaned social media platforms’ efforts to moderate content, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The "censorship" commentary intensified in August when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Congress that the Biden administration had pressured the company to censor some posts. But experts have told PolitiFact such pressure doesn’t amount to censorship, and the Supreme Court ruled in Biden’s favor in a lawsuit on the topic. The Trump administration similarly asked Twitter to remove some posts.

Vance’s examples

When contacted for comment, an Republican National Committee spokesperson pointed PolitiFact to several news stories:

• A PBS News story about Zuckerberg’s August letter to the House Judiciary Committee. Zuckerberg wrote that Biden’s administration in early 2021 "repeatedly pressured" Meta to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire.

The letter did not mention Harris or any other specific person.

The Republican-led committee shared Zuckerberg’s letter on X, calling it a "Big win for free speech." Zuckerberg in his letter said ultimately it was the company’s decision whether to remove content, but that "the government pressure was wrong" and he regretted not speaking up about it at the time. One of Meta’s decisions Zuckerberg cited — to temporarily demote a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop after an FBI warning about a potential Russian disinformation operation — happened while Trump was still in office.

• An article about former White House Digital Strategy Director Rob Flaherty, now Harris’ deputy campaign manager, emailing a Facebook employee about a COVID-19 vaccine-related social media post by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. We found no evidence that Harris had personally contacted Facebook about any posts.

• A Washington Times article about a March 2021 White House meeting with Amazon officials about the visibility on the online retailer’s website of some COVID-19-related books.

Meta’s fact-checking program during the pandemic spanned the Trump and Biden presidencies.

PolitiFact partners with Meta on its fact-checking program to slow misinformation’s spread. As part of the partnership, Meta flags posts that the company believes might be inaccurate or misleading, and fact-checkers provide feedback with published articles. Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, decides what, if any, action to take on its platforms.

The RNC didn’t specify what "other issues" besides COVID-19 Vance was referring to at the debate.

What has Harris said?

Harris has talked about social media platforms’ responsibilities. She said in a May 2019 speech that she would hold them "accountable" for hateful content they shared.

She called for Twitter to suspend Trump’s account in October 2019 because of his posts discussing a whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president that led to Trump’s first impeachment. This year, X owner Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Trump supporter and former independent presidential candidate, seized on Harris’ 2019 comments to amplify a false claim that Harris plans to shut down X if she’s elected.

An 880-page report in May from the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government detailed what it called the "Censorship-Industrial Complex," referring to what it described as the Biden-Harris administration’s pressure campaign against social media companies.

The report makes no accusations specific to Harris beyond a footnote referring to a September 2019 CNN interview in which she said Twitter should suspend Trump’s account.

Is pressuring social platforms censorship? Experts weigh in

Experts told PolitiFact in April that the Biden administration’s efforts to contact platforms about social media posts weren’t censorship unless they crossed the line into coercion, but that the Supreme Court would ultimately decide.

Sheri Berman, a Barnard College at Columbia University political science professor, said it’s reasonable for citizens and candidates to debate how much social media moderation should happen. But she said attempts to limit the spread of dangerous or false information pertaining to election results or vaccines’ efficacy during a pandemic "is not a threat to democracy."

The Supreme Court in June rejected an effort by Republican-led Missouri and Louisiana to restrict federal employees from pressuring social media companies to remove posts, saying the plaintiffs had no legal standing.

In the court’s 6-3 ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote that although the government factored in some of the platforms’ moderation decisions, "The evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment."

Trump also pressured social media platforms

Vance’s comments ignore evidence that the Trump administration also talked to social media platforms about removing content.

At a February 2023 House Oversight Committee hearing with then-Twitter executives about the Hunter Biden laptop story, one witness testified that the Trump White House had sought to remove a post from model Chrissy Teigen that criticized Trump.

Teigen had responded to Trump’s Sept. 8, 2019, social media post that called her "filthy-mouthed" by calling the former president a derogatory term.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., asked Anika Collier Navaroli, formerly of Twitter’s U.S. safety policy team: "The White House almost immediately thereafter contacted Twitter to demand the tweet be taken down. Is that accurate?"

Navaroli said: "I do remember hearing we'd received a request from the White House to make sure we evaluated this tweet, and they wanted it to come down because it was a derogatory statement directed at the president."

Our sources

mma 8 24 no gfx

on Facebook, right-leaning content overwhelmingly dominates the immigration conversation

Right-leaning pages earned over 65% of interactions — nearly 19.5 million — on posts about immigration from U.S. politics and news pages during the first half of 2024

Written by Kayla Gogarty & Courtney Hagle

Research contributions from Carly Evans

Published 08/12/24

A new Media Matters analysis found that right-leaning pages dominated conversations about immigration on Facebook during the first half of this year. While right-leaning pages have posted about immigration a similar amount as ideologically nonaligned pages, right-leaning posts have received the greatest number of total interactions by far on related posts compared to other news and politics pages.

Our key findings include:

• Immigration-related posts from right-leaning and ideologically nonaligned pages during the time period analyzed far outpaced those from left-leaning pages, with ideologically nonaligned pages accounting for 48%, right-leaning pages accounting for 47%, and left-leaning pages accounting for only 6%.

• Right-leaning pages earned the greatest number of interactions on immigration-related posts, with nearly 19.5 million interactions, or 65% of all interactions earned by news and politics pages.

• Five of the six Facebook pages that posted the most about immigration during the time frame were right-leaning pages dedicated to right-wing media outlets, including The Daily Wire, Newsmax, Just the News, Washington Examiner, and Breitbart. Fox News, Newsmax, and Breitbart were also among the 5 pages that received the most engagement.

• Half of the 10 immigration-related posts that received the greatest number of interactions were from right-leaning pages. These posts attacked Biden and fearmongered about his immigration policies.

• Networks of Facebook pages affiliated with right-wing outlets The Daily Wire, the Western Journal, The Epoch Times and its sister network New Tang Dynasty, Fox News, and The Blaze amplified their content across the platform, accounting for nearly 34% of immigration-related posts from right-leaning pages and nearly 16% of related posts from all news and politics pages.

• Networks of right-wing Facebook pages pushed falsehoods about noncitizens voting in Pennsylvania and claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris was the “border czar.”

• For years, conservatives have falsely claimed that social media platforms like Facebook are biased against them, continuing to attack the company even after it bent its rules to appease them. Media Matters and others have repeatedly debunked these claims, including by showing that Facebook incentivizes sensational political content in a way that effectively makes it a propaganda machine for the right.

Media Matters has documented numerous instances in which right-leaning pages have dominated the conversation on Facebook amid prominent news cycles. In recent months, right-wing media and politicians have sought to make immigration a key issue in the 2024 election, relentlessly fearmongering about migrant crime as Trump leads the charge on demonizing migrants and smearing Democrats on the issue of immigration.

• ## Right-leaning pages earned the most total interactions on posts related to immigration
• Facebook pages that regularly post about news and politics shared nearly 80,000 posts about immigration between January 1 and June 30, 2024, earning over 30 million total interactions.

Related posts from right-leaning and ideologically nonaligned pages far outpaced those from left-leaning pages, with ideologically nonaligned pages accounting for 48% (or more than 38,100 posts), right-leaning pages accounting for 47% (or more than 37,300 posts), and left-leaning pages accounting for only 6% (or 4,400 posts).

Notably, right-leaning pages earned the most interactions on immigration-related posts, with nearly 19.5 million interactions, or 65%. Left-leaning pages earned over 5.8 million interactions (or 19%) and ideologically nonaligned pages earned over 4.7 million interactions (or 16%).

• 
• ## Right-wing media outlets and politicians posted the most about immigration and earned the greatest number of interactions

• Five of the six Facebook pages that posted the most about immigration during the assessed time frame were right-leaning pages dedicated to right-wing media outlets, including The Daily Wire (more than 800 posts), Newsmax (roughly 760 posts), Just the News (nearly 650 posts), Washington Examiner (more than 640 posts), and Breitbart (nearly 580 posts). The only ideologically nonaligned or left-leaning page that rivaled the quantity of immigration-related posts from those right-wing outlets was CBS 4 News Rio Grande Valley (nearly 700 posts).

Fox News, Newsmax, and Breitbart were also among the 5 pages that received the most engagement on posts about immigration. Posts from left-leaning accounts, including historian Heather Cox Richardson and Occupy Democrats, rounded out the top 5.

Half of the 10 immigration-related posts that received the greatest number of interactions were from right-leaning pages, including Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, Newsmax, former President Donald Trump, and Franklin Graham. Most of these posts attacked Biden and fearmongered over his immigration policies, with Trump accusing Biden of “aiding and abetting a massive Invasion of millions of Illegal Migrants” and calling immigrants “Crooked Joe Biden's Illegal Immigrant Criminals.” These posts include:

• • Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s video showing “Texas border wall construction is ongoing in Maverick County,” which earned nearly 174,000 interactions.

• • Newsmax’s post about the Border Patrol union saying they never endorsed Biden after he said they did at the debate, which earned more than 117,000 interactions.

• • Trump’s post claiming, “When I was President, we had the most secure Border in History,” and that “Joe Biden has surrendered our Border, and is aiding and abetting a massive Invasion of millions of Illegal Migrants,” which earned nearly 102,000 interactions.

• • Franklin Graham’s post saying, “I hope President Biden’s trip to the border is going to make a difference, but his policies have caused this crisis,” which earned nearly 88,000 interactions.

• • Trump’s post about the death of Rachel Morin claimed that “one of Crooked Joe Biden's Illegal Immigrant Criminals was just charged,” earning over 84,000 interactions.
• 
• 
• ## Networks of Facebook pages amplified right-wing media’s content across the platform, including pushing false claims about noncitizens voting and Harris being a “border czar”

• Facebook has a history of allowing networks of right-wing pages to exploit its platform and amplify pro-Trump and other right-wing narratives.

Networks of Facebook pages affiliated with right-wing media outlets amplified their immigration-related content across the platform, including The Daily Wire, the Western Journal, Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty, Fox News, and The Blaze. These networks accounted for nearly 34% of immigration-related posts from right-leaning pages and nearly 16% of related posts from all news and politics pages. Interactions earned on the immigration-related posts from these networks accounted for 28% of all interactions earned by right-leaning pages and 18% of all interactions earned by all news and politics pages.

The Daily Wire’s network of 10 Facebook pages shared over 3,500 posts about immigration during the studied time period, earning over 1.7 million total interactions. One of the immigration-related posts from the network that earned the greatest number of interactions came from Ben Shapiro and claimed that “the left clearly wants illegal immigrants in the United States.” Pages in The Daily Wire’s network repeatedly shared the outlet’s articles.

---

note tropes lib press silence gag twitter files laptop whattaboutism...

greivance projection, note attack dem women

running for trump vp

:{alternet- no lnx

Home | Marco Rubio shouts over Kristen Welker in cringeworthy interview about election fraud

Marco Rubio shouts over Kristen Welker in cringeworthy interview about election fraud

:{David Edwardsand Raw Story May 19, 2024

An animated Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raised his voice and refused to say he would accept the outcome of the 2024 election on Sunday.

During an interview on Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker asked the senator if he would accept a loss by former President Donald Trump in this year's presidential election.

"Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, Senator?" Welker asked.

"No matter what happens? No," Rubio insisted.

"No matter who wins?" Welker pressed.

"Well, why don't you, I think you're asking the wrong person," Rubio shot back. "The Democrats are the ones that have opposed every Republican victory since 2000."

"It's Hillary Clinton who said it," he continued.

Welker pointed out that "no Democrat has refused to concede," including Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen from her and that Trump was illegitimate," Rubio asserted.

"Senator, she conceded the election," Welker noted again.

But Rubio raised his voice as he talked over the host.

"She said that the election had been stolen. Kamala Harris agreed," the senator argued. "And you have Democrats now saying they won't certify 2024 because Trump is an insurrectionist and ineligible to hold office."

"So you need to ask them," he complained. "I think you've ever asked the Democrats this question on your show. I bet you you've never asked the Democrat that question."

Welker reminded the lawmaker what he had said after certifying the 2020 election.

"Democracy is held together by people's confidence in the election and their willingness to abide by its results," Welker recalled. "So by your own definition, are Donald Trump's claims undermining Americans' confidence in democracy, given that he has not conceded the last election?"

Rubio, a possible vice presidential nominee, refused to condemn Trump.

"I think what undermines people's confidence in the election is when you have places like Wisconsin with over 500 illegal dropbox locations, when you have places like Georgia where liberal groups are [paying] people, $10 a per vote," he complained. "You couldn't even talk about it on social media. They would deplatform you."

"I have to jump in here, Senator," Welker interrupted. "You voted to certify the election. Nothing has been censored on this program."

Rubio griped about coverage of a laptop belonging to President Joe Biden's son, Hunter.

"We covered the laptop," Welker said.

"You couldn't even talk about it on social media," Rubio replied.

"And just to note that Chris Krebs, who was a top election official, called it the safest and most secure election in recent history," Welker added.

"But I'm telling you that if it's unfair, we are going to do the same thing Democrats do," Rubio pouted. "We're going to use lawyers to go to court and point out the fact that states are not following their own election laws."

Watch the video below from NBC or at the link.

Marco Rubio shouts over NBC host in cringeworthy interview

www.youtube.com

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

How these 6 Republicans are debasing themselves to be 'authoritarian crook' Trump’s VP ›

'Two-faced': Ex-GOP strategist explains why 'you can’t trust' Nikki Haley ›

How Trump’s ongoing feuds with GOP governors could throw a massive wrench in his campaign ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

How Marco Rubio navigated Trump as he's favored to keep his seat ... ›

Trump eyes Sen. Marco Rubio as a potential VP pick ›

Why I'm more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump - Vox ›

---

-----

note this vol corp effort?!

an 7 24

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) threw cold water on Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) after he claimed the media was "colluding" against conservatives.

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Jordan contended that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media had conspired with its members to avoid advertising on conservative outlets.

"They came together, agreed to limit advertising on certain platforms and news outlets that millions— millions of Americans choose to read, watch, and listen to," Jordan claimed. "They collude to make sure that no other advertisers support any news outlets, platforms, or creators that these massive companies don't agree with."

"And these people do not like conservatives," he insisted. "They will use their cartel to eliminate competition based on internal biases of these massive companies, and they will deprive Americans of the content that they actually want to consume."

Nadler pointed out that Jordan's hearinghad "nothing to do with antitrust laws, since the majority's allegations wither under even the most basic antitrust analysis."

"This is instead another dangerous effort by the majority to bully companies into promoting and supporting far-right extremist views, views that brands understandably do not want to be associated with," Nadler explained. "In this case, the majority seeks to undermine companies' First Amendment rights and to make it harder for them to avoid monetizing online and offline harm through advertising."

The Democratic lawmaker noted that advertisers wanted to avoid "funding of terrorist organizations, the promotion and distribution of foreign propaganda materials, and the promotion and distribution of racist, hateful, and discriminatory content."

Nadler pointed out that Republicans wanted to force advertisers to run ads on "platforms like Twitter, now known as X, True Social, Breitbart, and The Daily Wire, even though those sites are rife with adult content, hate speech, false information, misinformation, and racist and violent propaganda."

EXCLUSIVE:Trump's 'secretary of retribution' has a 'target list' of 350 people he wants arrested

The congressman told Jordan that The Daily Wire, run by Republican witness Ben Shapiro, had generated $220 million in revenue last year.

"His website has over 15 million followers across his main social media handles, including on sites that are members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, known as GARM, the target of today's hearing," Nadler said. "This hardly sounds like the victim of a conspiracy to suppress content."

"Under the direction of the chair, the committee is abusing its oversight authority," he added. "The Republicans are so committed to the belief that conservative content, in quotes, is being censored, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they will do anything to undermine the efforts of platforms to moderate their own content, which the Supreme Court recently affirmed is an exercise of their First Amendment rights."

Watch the video below from the House Judiciary Committee.

---

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/key-qanon-influencer-hosts-missouri-ag-promote-case-has-limited-governments

no lnx audio vid?

Key QAnon influencer hosts Missouri AG to promote case that has limited government's ability to discuss misinformation with tech platforms

WRITTEN BY ALEX KAPLAN

PUBLISHED 08/04/23

On August 1 and 2, QAnon influencer Tracy “Beanz” Diaz, who was a key figure behind the conspiracy theory’s spread on social media, hosted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and allowed him to promote thecase Missouri v. Biden, which has resulted in a judge barring President Joe Biden’s administration from interacting with social media platforms regarding possible misinformation.

Diaz was reportedly one of the three key figures who popularized QAnon online and organized a 2018 QAnon rally in Washington, D.C. 

On July 4, a federal judge issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden, barring the federal government from contacting platforms and asking to remove misinformation. The judge in the case, which focuses on whether the government is constitutionally allowed to contact social media platforms to request removal of alleged misinformation, repeated right-wing claims that social media platforms have censored conservative voices — which have been repeatedly debunked.An appeals court has currently stayed that injunction.

Diaz hosted Bailey for an August 1 interview on Twitter Spaces — which has become a popular place for previously suspended accounts that owner Elon Musk reinstated, including Diaz, to spread misinformation on the platform. During the interview, Bailey told Diaz that the lawsuit was “the most important First Amendment suit in at least a generation,” and Diaz said she had been “kind of pounding the pavement” regarding the lawsuit.

Beginning of Tracy Diaz’s Twitter Space with Andrew Bailey

AUGUST 1, 2023

Audio

SHARE

CitationFrom an August 1, 2023, Twitter Space hosted by Tracy Diaz

TRACY DIAZ (HOST): OK, hi everyone. Thanks for joining us today. I’m super excited about this Space.I’ve had several Spaces about this case, and I’m really honored to be joined by Attorney General Andrew Bailey from Missouri to work with us on this. They’ve never done a Space before. I sent the invite for them to speak. They have my phone number. So if you have a problem, attorney general, just shoot me a text real quick and I will work with you to get this up and running. We have a couple questions from folks really eager to hear your perspective on things. And it’s going to be good stuff for sure.

…

So thanks for being here today. Super awesome of you to spend the time. Everybody in this Space is very interested in this case.

…

ANDREW BAILEY (MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL): Yeah, well, first of all, thank you so much for having me on and the opportunity to chat with you. And this is the most important First Amendment suit in at least a generation.

…

But, you know, again, this [is]frightening stuff, and we're not going to let Joe Biden destroy the First Amendment.

DIAZ: Which is awesome. And, you know, I’ve been kind of pounding the pavement on this.

At the end of the Twitter Space, Diaz asked Bailey to say something “hopeful about the outcome” of the lawsuit to her followers.

End of Tracy Diaz’s Twitter Space with Andrew Bailey

AUGUST 1, 2023

Audio

CitationFrom an August 1, 2023, Twitter Space hosted by Tracy Diaz

TRACY DIAZ (HOST): Really gracious of you to give us a half hour of your time today. We're about three minutes out. Is there anything that you would like to say to all the folks here listening and who will listen to this after we’re done about, you know, being hopeful about the outcome of this or keeping faith in the Justice Department, at least for the litigation of this case and what it means?

ANDREW BAILEY (MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL): Well, we’re not going to let up. Again, we’re going to continue to fight to preserve the First Amendment right to free speech in America. You know, at the end of the day,I served in the United States Army in the war on terror and took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I was willing to put my life on the line to do it. Took that fight to the battlefield in the war on terror. That’s an oath I’ll never give up and it’s a fight I’m proud to be leading on behalf of the state of Missouri in the courtrooms across this nation, in the state of Missouri today. 

DIAZ: Thank you so much. This has been really awesome. I really appreciate your time. All of us in here are following this daily. And a lot of people are really invested in it because it’s so important. So I appreciate you being here. Really, really awesome.

BAILEY: Well, thanks for having me on. Look forward to giving an update here in the coming days, weeks, and months.

Bailey also appeared on Diaz’s podcast on August 2, when Diaz complained that she had been banned from multiple platforms, and asked for how to “rectify what’s happened.” In response, Bailey expressed concern about “how many listeners do you have that were deprived of the information that you would have gotten to them.”

Video

CitationFrom the August 2, 2023, edition of Dark to Light

TRACY DIAZ (HOST): But me, I was censored off of Twitter. I’ve been censored off of Facebook. I’ve been debanked. I’ve been all — I can’t use PayPal. I’m censored. What — if this goes the way we think it will and you win, what does the everyday American — how can they rectify what’s happened to them, based on the [UNINTELLIGIBLE]?

ANDREW BAILEY (MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL): Well, first of all, we can all celebrate the fact that we get our First Amendment right to free speech back. I mean, I think that was my tweet on July 4, like happy birthday, America, you get your First Amendment free speech back and we’ll keep fighting to do that. The wall of separation between tech and state is absolutely essential to protect all of our rights.

And, you know, whether there’s class certification or not, it is a nationwide injunction, and we’ll keep pushing forward with that nationwide injunction. It’s the state of Missouri v. Biden, Louisiana is on board and certainly there are private plaintiffs, but all Americans who have been censored on Big Tech social media platforms and any American — it’s not just those speakers who have been censored. That’s the important thing to remember, too. You might have been speaking, but how many listeners do you have that were deprived of the information that you would have gotten to them? It's the hearers of the information. And so it’s an exponential number of individuals whose constitutional rights to say and hear what they choose, absent government censorship, those rights have been violated, and that’s why the nationwide injunction is so important, and we’ll keep fighting to achieve that objective.

DIAZ: This is the most important civil rights case in modern history, hands down. There’s no doubt about it. I was saying it the day you filed the complaint and people are finally starting to catch up with how important this is. Attorney general, thank you so much for joining us today.

BAILEY: Thank you so much for having me on.

===

===

no lnx an 7 23

conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will testify as a witness next week before Chairman Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Jordan has been under pressure from Republicans to produce actual evidence of so-called weaponization. Some have warned his committee may “simply be a Fox News clip generator.”

The announcement that RFK Jr. will be a witness came Wednesday evening, with the Committee saying its “hearing will examine the federal government’s role in censoring Americans, the Missouri v. Biden case, and Big Tech’s collusion with out-of-control government agencies to silence speech.”

Hour later, Fox News ran an article quoting RFK Jr., who said: “I was the first person censored by the Biden administration.”

READ MORE: Mitch McConnell Defends Clarence Thomas

According to Fox News, “Kennedy said the White House entreated Twitter and Facebook to censor him within two days of President Biden’s inauguration.”

“I’m still being censored. We know the FBI is involved in that censorship as well as a whole plethora of other federal agencies,” Kennedy alleged.

Experts note the federal government has spent years under both the Biden and Trump administrations, fighting dangerous misinformation, on issues such as COVID-19 and vaccines, and voting and elections. Legal experts including civil rights groups say notifying social media platforms of dangerous misinformation is not censorship, but a Trump-appointed federal judge recently disagreed.

In April, reporting on Kennedy’s entrance into the 2024 presidential race, the Associated Press described him as “an anti-vaccine activist and scion of one of the country’s most famous political families.”

READ MORE: Inflation Is Plummeting Across America – But Not in Ron DeSantis’ Florida

Noting he is the “nephew of President John F. Kennedy and the son of his slain brother Robert F. Kennedy,” the AP saidhe “was once a bestselling author and environmental lawyer who worked on issues such as clean water.”

“But more than 15 years ago, he became fixated on a belief that vaccines are not safe. He emerged as one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement, and his work has been described by public health experts and even members of his own family as misleading and dangerous.”

Democrats on Wednesday expressed opposition to hosting Kennedy. “We believe in candidates for president who believe in science and vaccines,” and said his beliefs are not “grounded in reality.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

New report exposes more details Jim Jordan held back about Trump on Jan. 6 — and ropes in Matt Gaetz too ›

Former RNC Chair Michael Steele merrily rips into Jim Jordan's selective Jan. 6 amnesia ›

These wealthy megadonors are supporting DeSantis and RFK Jr. at the same time: report ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

RFK Jr. Campaign's Crazy New Low: Strategic Farting by Climate ... ›

RFK Jr. will testify before House panel on government censorship ›

===

===

see soc media links

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/social-media-platforms-are-backsliding-paving-way-chaos-2024-0

aha note bail on moderation (big layoffs)

mma 6 23 badish code box size

social media companies Meta, YouTube, and Twitter are backsliding on their efforts to combat misinformation, capitulating to right-wing pressure and allowing the same sort of dangerous content that has previously led to real-world harm.

Social media platforms’ failures to moderate false and dangerous content during the 2020 election contributed to the January 6 insurrection. Following the violence at the Capitol, platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube suspended former President Donald Trump from posting and developed new policies to curb dangerous falsehoods. The platforms have regularly struggled to enforce moderation policies, but the changes helped prevent some of the spread of harmful misinformation during the 2022 midterm elections.

Both before and since platforms made these changes, right-wing figures have repeatedly and relentlessly claimed that there is an unfair bias against them online. Media Matters and others have repeatedly debunked this claim, with a recent study showing that right-leaning Facebook pages earned more engagement than left-leaning or ideologically nonaligned pages in 2020 and 2021.

Despite this reality, platforms have actually bent their rules and given preferential treatment to right-wing media and politicians. In the lead up to another presidential election and amid recurring election misinformation and conspiracy theories, platforms are further capitulating to right-wing pressure — loosening content moderation policies, downsizing content moderation and safety teams, and reinstating accounts known for pushing misinformation.

Meta is deprioritizing content moderation and user safety

Since the start of 2022, Meta has gradually reverted its policies and practices to how they were prior to the insurrection. The company has restored the previously banned accounts of political candidates and vowed not to fact-check them, with Trump regaining access to his Facebook and Instagram accounts. More recently, Meta has restored access to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was banned for spreading dangerous COVID-19 misinformation.

Meta has also laid off about a quarter of its workforce since November, cutting teams focused on site security, privacy and integrity.

Below is a timeline of key developments since the start of 2022:

June 22, 2022: Meta considers eliminating its COVID-19 misinformation policies, asking its oversight board to advise the company on whether to maintain its policies against dangerous COVID-19 misinformation, claiming that “the COVID-19 situation has evolved.”

July 26, 2022: Meta's oversight board accepts the company’s request to revise its COVID-19 misinformation policy, kicking off its advisory process and requesting public comments to inform its recommendations. (The oversight board’s policy advisory opinions are not binding; they require only that Meta provide a public response and follow-up actions.)

September 22, 2022: Meta global affairs president Nick Clegg indicates in an interview with Semafor that Facebook might end Trump’s suspension in January 2023 without considering the accuracy of (or the risk posed by) his content.

November 9, 2022: Meta announces that it will eliminate more than 11,000 jobs, or 13% of its workforce, choosing to sink more money into its efforts to build the “metaverse.”

January 17, 2023: The Washington Post reports that House January 6 committee investigators found — but ultimately did not publish — mountains of evidence demonstrating that social media companies “like Facebook and Twitter” provided “megaphones” for right-wing extremists ahead of the Capitol insurrection and refused to enforce their own content moderation policies out of fear of conservative backlash.

January 25, 2023: Meta announces that it will be reinstating Trump’s account in the coming weeks, along with a new “Crisis Policy Protocol,” and “Restricting accounts of public figures during civil unrest” policy. With this decision, Meta gives Trump the green light to push harmful misinformation and extremism on its platforms, reportedly telling CNN’s Oliver Darcy that “posts attacking 2020 will be allowed, but posts attacking 2024 are a different story.”

February 9, 2023: Meta reinstates Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.

March 14, 2023: Meta announces a second round of mass layoffs, cutting another 10,000 people from its workforce including those focused on site security, privacy, and integrity.

March 17, 2023: Trump posts on Facebook for the first time since his account was reinstated.

March 30, 2023: After news broke that a Manhattan grand jury had voted to indict Trump for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, Trump posts a full copy of his misinformation-filled statement to his newly reinstated Facebook page.

June 4, 2023:Instagram reinstates the account of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is one of the most prominent anti-vaccine figures in the U.S. Kennedy was banned from the platform in 2021 for violating its COVID-19 misinformation policies, but since “he is now an active candidate for president of the United States,” Meta decided to reinstate his account. Kennedy had been pressuring the platform to do so on Twitter in the days leading up to the decision. Right-wing media, meanwhile, have  the platform announced that it will reverse its policy against election misinformation and no longer remove content that “advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections.” While Trump was seemingly avoiding livestreaming on YouTube to avoid being banned for violating the platform’s election policies, he may use the feature now that his election lies will be tolerated.

Right-wing media figures and outlets have credited Twitter and owner Elon Musk for “moving the needle” around election misinformation, implying that his actions influenced YouTube’s decision.

Here’s a timeline of key developments since the start of 2022:

November 5, 2022: The New York Times reports thatYouTube “may have misinformation blind spots” and that its election integrity policy prohibits election misinformation only during presidential elections, not during midterm elections. In the Times piece, Media Matters President Angelo Carusone described the policy as tantamount to building “a sprinkler system after the building is on fire.”

January 20, 2023: Google CEO Sundar Pichai announces that parent company Alphabet will be laying off 12,000 employees, or 6% of the company’s global workforce. This includes more than 100 YouTube employees.

February 1, 2023: YouTube begins sharing ad revenue with Shorts creators on the platform, providing a new form of monetization. This means right-wing influencers who litter the platform with anti-LGBTQ vitriol, racist and misogynistic rhetoric, and COVID-19 misinformation may stand to gain financially from their harmful content.

March 17, 2023: YouTube announces that it will be immediately lifting Trump’s suspension on the platform and allowing him to upload new content. Though the platform claims that it “carefully evaluated the continued risk of real-world violence,” the decision fails to account for Trump’s propensity to push extreme rhetoric and the platform’s weak misinformation policies and haphazard enforcement.

June 2, 2023: YouTube reverses its policy to allow 2020 election lies, claiming: “Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to reevaluate the effects of this policy in today's changed landscape. … With that in mind, and with 2024 campaigns well underway, we will stop removing content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections." Right-wing media celebrate the decision.

Twitter has devolved into a dysfunctional cesspool of conspiracy theories and bigotry, losing half of its advertising revenue since Musk took over in October 2022<... zzz Elon Musk’s leadership has plunged Twitter into chaos, with his misguided “free speech” crusade transforming the platform into an engine of radicalization and a steady source of harmful content. He had driven away half the site’s top 100 advertisers after a month as CEO and recently admitted to having reduced its revenue by half.

The platform now has minimal content moderation, minimal staff, and paid (and unreliable) verification. Musk has caved to authoritarian governments and reinstated previously banned accounts of extremists (including Trump, who has yet to tweet).

A timeline of key developments since the start of 2022:

April 4, 2022: News breaks that Elon Musk had purchased a 9.2% stake in Twitter, making him the largest shareholder.

April 5, 2022: Twitter's then-CEO Parag Agrawal announces that Musk has been given a seat on Twitter’s board, prompting right-wing media to ask Musk to end Twitter's nonexistent censorship and bring Trump back to the platform.

April 10, 2022: Musk decides not to join Twitter’s board.

April 14, 2022: Musk offers to buy Twitter for about $44 billion.

July 22, 2022: A Twitter spokesperson confirms that the targeted use of “groomer” as a slur against another user “based on their perceived membership in a protected category” violates the platform’s hate speech policies. They further identified its use “in context of discussion of gender identity” as prohibited under Twitter’s Hateful Conduct policy. (Enforcement was extremely uneven and use of the term skyrocketed after Musk acquired the platform.)

October 3, 2022: Musk offers to buy Twitter at the original share price of $44 billion. Right-wing media celebrate.

October 27, 2022: Musk completes the $44 billion deal and takes control of Twitter, tweeting “the bird is freed” after firing former Twitter executives and sending out an email to staff saying that layoffs were set to begin. Per a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Musk also dismisses Twitter’s board, making himself the sole leader. Previously banned Twitter users celebrate, and QAnon supporters make clear that they see the takeover as a green light to rejoin the platform.

October 28, 2022: Musk flexes his new power by issuing a directive, without any context or rationale, to change the page logged-out users see when they go to Twitter.com to the “explore” page, which shows trending tweets and news stories, rather than a sign-up form.

November 3 and 4, 2022: Twitter undertakes mass layoffs, firing over 3,000 people — or around 50% of Twitter’s workforce — including the entire ethical-AI team and most of the company’s communications team.

November 6, 2022: Reportedly without informing the policy team, Musk tweets, “Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended,” after some users mimicked Musk’s account.

November 7, 2022: Musk tweets out a link to “The Twitter Rules” with the caption “Twitter rules will evolve over time, but they’re currently the following.” This leads to confusion about whether misinformation violates Twitter’s policies. (The platform has a separate page on Twitter’s Help Center website that addresses misleading information.)

November 9, 2022: Twitter launches Twitter Blue, which asks users to pay for a blue verification check mark for $7.99 per month. QAnon influencers use the service to try to regain a foothold on the platform, and other right-wing extremists begin using their newly purchased check marks to spread hate.

November 10, 2022: Six Twitter executives resign: Yoel Roth (head of moderation and safety), Lea Kissner (chief information security officer), Marianne Fogarty (chief compliance officer), Kathleen Pacini (head of human resources and talent management), Damien Kieran (chief privacy officer), and John Debay (director of software engineering). Several other members of the site’s privacy and security unit resign as well, prompting “a rare warning from the Federal Trade Commission.”

November 11, 2022: Just days after Twitter Blue launched and caused mayhem — with subscribers impersonating numerous users and brands — Musk reportedly pauses the program, but allows users already subscribed, including extremists, to keep their subscriptions.

November 12, 2022: Twitter undertakes a second wave of mass layoffs, impacting about 4,400 contractors.

November 14, 2022: Musk fires about a dozen employees — including multiple longtime Twitter engineers — seemingly for criticizing him.

November 15, 2022: Musk fires roughly two dozen more employees, seemingly for expressing sympathy for those fired the day before.

November 16, 2022: Musk sends a midnight email ultimatum for remaining Twitter employees: either commit to being “extremely hardcore” or quit and receive three months of severance pay. Reuters reports that hundreds of employees resigned following this email.

November 18, 2022: Musk tweets, “Freedom Fridays … ,” seemingly to announce the beginning of reinstatements of formerly banned accounts, starting with comedian Kathy Griffin, The Daily Wire’s Jordan Peterson, and conservative satire site The Babylon Bee.

November 19, 2022: After launching a poll about whether Twitter should reinstate Trump’s account — which was permanently suspended following the January 6 Capitol insurrection “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” — Musk tweets, “The people have spoken. Trump will be reinstated.”

November 24, 2022: After Musk posts another poll, Twitter begins granting “amnesty” to previously suspended accounts that had “not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam.”

November 29, 2022: Twitter stops enforcing its COVID-19 misinformation policies, providing no further details beyond a note on its site reading, “Effective November 23, 2022, Twitter is no longer enforcing the COVID-19 misleading information policy.”

December 12, 2022: Twitter Blue relaunches, with the stipulation that accounts will be reviewed before getting a blue check. Additionally, gold checks are rolled out for some businesses. Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council is also disbanded because, according to an email obtained by CNN, Twitter is “reevaluating how best to bring external insights into our product and policy development work. As part of this process, we have decided that the Trust and Safety Council is not the best structure to do this.” The dissolution of the council comes less than an hour before members were scheduled to meet with Twitter executives, according to The Washington Post.

December 14, 2022: Twitter launches a new policy that users “may not publish or post other people's private information without their express authorization and permission. We also prohibit threatening to expose private information or incentivizing others to do so.” The new policy is used as justification to ban an account, @ElonJet, that tracked the location of Musk’s private jet, and those of journalists whom Musk accused of “doxxing” him by reporting on the @ElonJet account.

December 16, 2022: Musk briefly disables the Twitter Spaces feature after some of the suspended journalists were still able to access the feature and press him about why they were targeted. Twitter also announces that it is reinstating a number of accounts “where permanent suspension was a disproportionate action for breaking Twitter rules.”

December 17, 2022: Musk reinstates most of the journalists he accused of “doxxing” him after issuing a poll that asked if they should be brought back to the platform. Later that day, Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz is suspended for allegedly violating a policy that was not yet introduced. Twitter also removes the feature that showed from which type of device a tweet was sent.

December 18, 2022: Twitter announces — and then revokes — a policy that prohibited users from promoting other social media platforms. Later in the day, Lorenz is reinstated and Twitter Safety launches a poll to see if an altered version of this policy should be reintroduced.

January 3, 2023: Musk announces that he will revoke Twitter’s years-old policy against political and issue-based advertisements. Politico later reports that in the two months following that reversal, no paid political ads were taken out on the platform.

February 3, 2023: Journalist Matt Navarra confirms that corporate Twitter accounts would have to pay $1,000 a month to keep their previously free verification status, leading a number of media organizations to reject the new verification scheme.

February 8, 2023: Musk oversees the expansion of a tweet’s size limit from 280 up to 4,000 characters for Twitter Blue subscribers to end the practice of posting screenshots of longer statements, which he called an “absurdity.” Upon implementation, users report that Twitter’s main functions had crashed, leaving them unable to tweet, retweet, follow users, or send direct messages.

February 9, 2023: Following an announcement that Twitter would end free access to its application programming interface (API), journalists, researchers, advertisers, and users raise concerns over the ramifications that removing API access would have on user experience, including important and potentially lifesaving public service announcements. Despite Twitter delaying when access to API would be rescinded, multiple organizations are still unable to provide automated updates about issues including weather and transportation alerts.

February 14, 2023: After Musk’s own Super Bowl tweet earns lower engagement than President Joe Biden’s, he directs engineers to artificially inflate his presence on users' feeds to correct an “engagement issue.” This comes after Musk reportedly fired top engineers because of his declining views and supposedly threatened to fire others unless they would show more people his tweets.

February 8, 2023: Musk oversees the expansion of a tweet’s size limit from 280 up to 4,000 characters for Twitter Blue subscribers to end the practice of posting screenshots of longer statements, which he called an “absurdity.” Upon implementation, users report that Twitter’s main functions had crashed, leaving them unable to tweet, retweet, follow users, or send direct messages.

March 10, 2023: After stating that it would no longer be granting free access to Twitter’s application programming interface on February 2, Musk announces that users of Twitter’s then-free API service would have to pay $2.5 million per year to retain full access.

April 2, 2023: After learning that The New York Times would not pay to keep its verification status, Musk reportedly orders that Twitter engineers remove the paper’s verification mark. Musk's decision to target the Times, one of Twitter's largest accounts, is seemingly made in response to prodding by a meme account and resulted in the Times operating several accounts under conflicting verification standards simultaneously.

April 4, 2023: Musk changes Twitter’s corporate identity to “X Corp.” as part of his still-unclear plan to have the social media platform serve as a hub for crypto exchanges, stock trading, and social media.

April 5, 2023: Musk’s Twitter falsely brands NPR and BBC accounts as “state-affiliated media” and “government-funded media,” respectively, leading to NPR leaving the platform and the BBC having its designation removed after significant protest.

April 6, 2023: Amid Musk’s personal feud with the newsletter site Substack, Twitter begins limiting accounts from engaging with tweets featuring links to Substack.

April 17, 2023: After quietly removing its hate speech policy against the “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals,” Twitter announces that it will no longer remove certain tweets that “potentially” violate its rules against hateful conduct. Instead, it will merely apply warning labels to such tweets.

April 20, 2023: Twitter begins removing blue check verification badges from the profiles of celebrities, news outlets, and other high-profile accounts across the platform, making it difficult for users to determine which sources are reputable. As those legacy blue checks expired, Twitter continues to sell verification badges to just about anyone willing to pay a monthly fee. A couple of celebrities, including LeBron James who said he would not pay for Twitter Blue, receive a “complimentary subscription … on behalf of Elon Musk.”

May 9, 2023: Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson announces that he plans to relaunch his show on Twitter, sending a shockwave through the U.S. political and media class.

May 12, 2023: A day after proclaiming that a new Twitter CEO would be starting in roughly six weeks, Musk announces Linda Yaccarino would be filling the role. Hours earlier, NBCUniversal had announced that Yaccarino, formerly the company’s chairman for Global Advertising and Partnerships, was leaving “effective immediately.” Musk continues to use the platform to push dangerous conspiracy theories and racist dog whistles.

May 24, 2023: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announces his 2024 GOP presidential campaign during a disastrous Twitter Spaces event with Musk and right-wing investor David Sacks.

June 5, 2023: Yaccarino officially becomes CEO, after lawyers for the company admitted in a June 1 federal court filing that her hiring “will not result in a different content-moderation strategy” — contradicting the notion that the new CEO will solve the platform’s advertising issues.

June 8, 2023: Musk hosts a Twitter Spaces event with anti-vaccine influencer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and admits that Twitter revenue is down by half since his takeover.

June 21, 2023: Musk tweets a new Twitter policy, claiming that “cis” or “cisgender” are “considered slurs on the platform,” and that “Repeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions.” The new policy comes as Musk has repeatedly claimed in response to questions about moderation of hateful content that he is adamant about defending free speech.

===

OMG did this BS campaign win?  after musk bought twit, horrible deal/error so he had to dump employees, and safety is most $? and he is least amenable --> edgelord; gave cover for all to sell out:

musk gets credit?

mma 6 23

youTube’s decision to permit content promoting election conspiracy theories and misinformation is being heralded by right-wing media and figures as a win for “free speech.”

The platform confirmed to Axios on June 2 that it would allow users to upload content claiming that “fraud, errors or glitches occurred in the 2020 presidential election and other U.S. elections.” The decision reverses a December 2020 election integrity policy, which the company reportedly felt could have the effect of “curtailing political speech without meaningfully reducing the risk of violence or other real-world harm."

On Friday, Media Matters’ Julie Millican released a statement condemning the decision: “YouTube and the other platforms that preceded it in weakening their election misinformation policies, like Facebook, have made it clear that one attempted insurrection wasn’t enough. They’re setting the stage for an encore.”

In March, YouTube reinstated former President Donald Trump’s account– which was suspended following the January 6 attack on the Capitol – despite his continued attempts to push the election misinformation that resulted in real-world violence. The decision to allow election conspiracy theories to circulate on the platform recklessly ignores social media as a major factor in the deadly insurrection.

Some right-wing media outlets and figures are celebrating the policy change, claiming that it’s a win for conservatives, who falsely claim that social media platforms are censoring them. Others have also linked the decision to Elon Musk rolling back content moderation policies on Twitter,with some saying Musk paved the way for YouTube’s decision. 

Right-wing outlets and figures celebrated that election conspiracy theories will be allowed on the platform again

• Reacting to the news, “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexanderdeclared on Telegram that “Stop the Steal prevails.”
• Right Side Broadcasting reporter Liz Willistweeted: “HUGE - YouTube reverses ‘election misinformation policy,’ allows people to discuss the fraudulent 2020 election.”
• Former Epoch Times columnist-turned-QAnon influencerBrian Catescelebrated the news on Telegram, saying, “First they mock and ridicule you. Then they angrily call you a bigot and a liar. Then they ban you. Then they admit you were right and THEN YOU WIN.”
• Notorious election deniers and founders of True the Vote Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillipstweeted about the news, saying of YouTube: “Just figured out they committed billions of federal crimes? …nope just figured out they lost 1/2 of Americas eyeballs and the money that comes with them.”
• Following the policy reversal, the QAnon account Badlands Mediasuggested the account would post election misinformation on YouTube, saying, “Let's see if YouTube is actually going to backtrack on censorship. If you're on there, be sure to subscribe to Badlands Media! We'll be putting it to the test.”
• Gateway Pundit writer and Badlands Media host Brian Lupo, who is known online as “CannCon” and was allegedly banned from YouTube in June 2021 for posting election misinformation, celebrated YouTube’s policy reversal. Lupo declared on Twitter, “YouTube back in play!!!!”

Right-wing media figures and outlets praised Musk for “moving the needle” and implied his actions influenced YouTube’s decision

• On Twitter, right-wing influencer ALXcredited Musk for YouTube’s decision, saying, “Last week, YouTube reversed their policy on talking about election fraud just as Twitter has been focusing on long form content. … Twitter is moving the needle and forcing other platforms to swing toward Free Speech.”
• Cheering on YouTube’s move, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton tweeted that the decision was a sign “of the impact of @ElonMusk's free speech reforms.”
• On Twitter, former Fox Business host Trish Regan asked if YouTube made the decision because the platform is “worried about Twitter competition.”
• The right-wing outlet Epoch Times:{e}:mphasized Musk in coverage of YouTube’s policy reversal and parroted Musk’s framing that he is a free speech “‘absolutist’ … who took over Twitter last year with a pledge to remove political bias from the platform and make it more balanced.”

===

===

https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-2661556363/

no lnx raw 6 23

Jim Jordan leads GOP push to cripple 'fight against disinformation': report

Matthew Chapman

June 19, 2023,

Republican lawmakers are joining forces with far-right activists to attack universities and even private businesses that are investigating the spread of disinformation online — claiming that this amounts to an effort to silence conservatives on the internet, according to a report.

The New York Times posted a details of the actions they are taking on Monday.

"The effort has encumbered its targets with expansive requests for information and, in some cases, subpoenas — demanding notes, emails and other information related to social media companies and the government dating back to 2015. Complying has consumed time and resources and already affected the groups’ ability to do research and raise money, according to several people involved," reported Steven Lee Myers and Sheera Frenkel.

"They and others warned that the campaign undermined the fight against disinformation in American society when the problem is, by most accounts, on the rise — and when another presidential election is around the corner. Many of those behind the Republican effort had also joined former President Donald J. Trump in falsely challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election."

The House Judiciary Committee, under Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), has been leading the charge. Meanwhile, a group founded by far-right former Trump adviser Stephen Miller has filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court going after the same entities.

"Targets include Stanford, Clemson and New York Universities and the University of Washington; the Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund and the National Conference on Citizenship,all nonpartisan, nongovernmental organizations in Washington; the Wikimedia Foundationin San Francisco; and Graphika, a company that researches disinformation online," said the report.

"In a related line of inquiry, the committee has also issued a subpoena to the World Federation of Advertisers, a trade association, and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media it created. The committee’s Republican leaders have accused the groups of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to cut off advertising revenue for content researchers and tech companies found to be harmful."

The new push is part of a broader, years-long conspiracy theory among right-wing activists that the government and "big tech" companies are colluding to silence conservative speech on the internet. There is no evidence of any such conspiracy; in fact, research shows conservative content actually spreads more easily on Facebook and Twitter.

:{:{}:

}:

LNX

There is no evidence of any such conspiracy; in fact, research shows conservative content actually spreads more easily on Facebook and Twitter.

===

---

ref nyt

bing steal nno lnx

G.O.P. Targets Researchers Who Study Disinformation Ahead of 2024 Election

A legal campaign against universities and think tanks seeks to undermine the fight against false claims about elections, vaccines and other hot political topics.

By Steven Lee Myers and Sheera Frenkel

June 19, 2023

On Capitol Hill and in the courts, Republican lawmakers and activists are mounting a sweeping legal campaign against universities, think tanks and private companies that study the spread of disinformation, accusing them of colluding with the government to suppress conservative speech online.

The effort has encumbered its targets with expansive requests for information and, in some cases, subpoenas — demanding notes, emails and other information related to social media companies and the government dating back to 2015. Complying has consumed time and resources and already affected the groups’ ability to do research and raise money,according to several people involved.

They and others warned that the campaign undermined the fight against disinformation in American society when the problem is, by most accounts, on the rise— and when another presidential election is around the corner. Many of those behind the Republican effort had also joined former President Donald J. Trump in falsely challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

“I think it’s quite obviously a cynical — and I would say wildly partisan — attempt to chill research,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director ofColumbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute,an organization that works to safeguard freedom of speech and the press.

:{:{}:

}:

The House Judiciary Committee, which in January came under Republican majority control, has sent scores of letters and subpoenas to the researchers — only some of which have been made public. It has threatened legal action against those who have not responded quickly or fully enough.

A conservative advocacy group led by Stephen Miller, the former adviser to Mr. Trump, filed a class-action lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court in Louisiana that echoes many of the committee’s accusations and focuses on some of the same defendants.

:{:{}:

}:

Targets include Stanford, Clemson and New York Universities and the University of Washington; the Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund and the National Conference on Citizenship, all nonpartisan, nongovernmental organizations in Washington; the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco; and Graphika, a company that researches disinformation online.

In a related line of inquiry, the committee has also issued a subpoena to the World Federation of Advertisers, a trade association, and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media it created. The committee’s Republican leaders have accused the groups of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to cut off advertising revenue for content researchers and tech companies found to be harmful.

A House subcommittee was created to scrutinize what Republicans have charged is a government effort to silence conservatives. Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

The committee’s chairman, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close ally of Mr. Trump, has accused the organizations of “censorship of disfavored speech” involving issues that have galvanized the Republican Party: the policies around the Covid-19 pandemic and the integrity of the American political system, including the outcome of the 2020 election.

Much of the disinformation surrounding both issues has come from the right. Many Republicans are convinced that researchers who study disinformation have pressed social media platforms to discriminate against conservative voices.

[The Spread of Misinformation and Falsehoods

The Titanic Truthers of TikTok: On the app, long-established facts about the 1912 disaster are being newly litigated as musty rumors merge with fresh misinformation and manipulated content.

A Global Effort: A group of scholars introduced an international panel to study online misinformation, inspired by the way scientists documented the global effect of carbon emissions.

A Hub for Conspiracy Theories: The Denver airport is a magnet for tall tales inspired by the paranormal — and an experiment into whether, sometimes, institutional fabulism can just be fun.

Climate Lies: In 2021, Google said that it would stop running ads alongside content that denied climate change. But a report shows that one of its platforms, YouTube, has continued to profit from videos pushing misinformation on the topic.]

Those complaints have been fueled by Twitter’s decision under its new owner, Elon Musk, to release selected internal communications between government officials and Twitter employees. The communications show government officials urging Twitter to take action against accounts spreading disinformation but stopping short of ordering them to do, as some critics claimed.

Patrick L. Warren, an associate professor at Clemson University, said researchers at the school have provided documents to the committee, and given some staff members a short presentation. “I think most of this has been spurred by our appearance in the Twitter files, which left people with a pretty distorted sense of our mission and work,” he said.

Last year, theRepublican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana sued the Biden administration in U.S. District Court in Louisiana, arguing that government officials effectively cajoled or coerced Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms by threatening legislative changes. The judge, Terry A. Doughty, rejected a defense motion to dismiss the lawsuit in March.

The current campaign’s focus is not government officials but rather private individuals working for universities or nongovernmental organizations. They have their own First Amendment guarantees of free speech, including their interactions with the social media companies.

The group behind the class action, America First Legal, named as defendants two researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory, Alex Stamos and Renée DiResta; a professor at the University of Washington, Kate Starbird; an executive of Graphika, Camille François; and the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, Graham Brookie.

If the lawsuit proceeds, they could face trial and, potentially, civil damages if the accusations are upheld.

Mr. Miller, the president of America First Legal, did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement last month, he said the lawsuit was “striking at the heart of the censorship-industrial complex.”

The researchers, who have been asked by the House committee to submit emails and other records, are also defendants in the lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. The plaintiffs include Jill Hines, a director of Health Freedom Louisiana, an organization that has been accused of disinformation, and Jim Hoft, the founder of the Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site. The court in the Western District of Louisiana has, under Judge Doughty, become a favored venue for legal challenges against the Biden administration.

The attacks use “the same argument that starts with some false premises,” said Jeff Hancock, the founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab, which is not a party to any of the legal action. “We see it in the media, in the congressional committees and in lawsuits, and it is the same core argument, with a false premise about the government giving some type of direction to the research we do.”

The House Judiciary Committee has focused much of its questioning on two collaborative projects. One was the Election Integrity Partnership, which Stanford and the University of Washington formed before the 2020 electionto identify attempts “to suppress voting, reduce participation, confuse voters or delegitimize election results without evidence.” The other, also organized by Stanford, was called the Virality Project and focused on the spread of disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines.

Both subjects have become political lightning rods, exposing the researchers to partisan attacks online that have become ominously personal at times.

In the case of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the requests for information — including all emails — have even extended to students who volunteered to work as interns for the Election Integrity Partnership.

A central premise of the committee’s investigation — and the other complaints about censorship — is that the researchers or government officials had the power or ability to shut down accounts on social media. They did not, according to former employees at Twitter and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, who said the decision to punish users who violated platform rules belonged solely to the companies.

No evidence has emerged that government officials coerced the companies to take action against accounts, even when the groups flagged problematic content.

“We have not only academic freedom as researchers to conduct this research but freedom of speech to tell Twitter or any other company to look at tweets we might think violate rules,” Mr. Hancock said.

The universities and research organizations have sought to comply with the committee’s requests, though the collection of years of emails has been a time-consuming task complicated by issues of privacy. They face mounting legal costs and questions from directors and donors about the risks raised by studying disinformation. Online attacks have also taken a toll on morale and, in some cases, scared away students.

In May, Mr. Jordan, the committee’s chairman, threatened Stanford with unspecified legal action for not complying with a previously issued subpoena, even though the university’s lawyers have been negotiating with the committee’s lawyers over how to shield students’ privacy. (Several of the students who volunteered are identified in the America First Legal lawsuit.)

The committee declined to discuss details of the investigation, including how many requests or subpoenas it has filed in total. Nor has it disclosed how it expects the inquiry to unfold — whether it would prepare a final report or make criminal referrals and, if so, when. In its statements, though, it appears to have already reached a broad conclusion.

“The Twitter files and information from private litigation show how the federal government worked with social media companies and other entities to silence disfavored speech online,” a spokesman, Russell Dye, said in a statement. “The committee is working hard to get to the bottom of this censorship to protect First Amendment rights for all Americans.”

The partisan controversy is having an effect on not only the researchers but also the social media giants.

:{:{}:

}:

Twitter, under Mr. Musk, has made a point of lifting restrictions and restoring accounts that had been suspended, including the Gateway Pundit’s. YouTube recently announced that it would no longer ban videos that advanced “false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past U.S. presidential elections.”

Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation for The Times. He has worked in Washington, Moscow, Baghdad and Beijing, where he contributed to the articles that won the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2021. He is also the author of “The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.” @stevenleemyers • Facebook

Sheera Frenkel is a prize-winning technology reporter based in San Francisco. In 2021, she and Cecilia Kang published “An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination.” @sheeraf

===

===

mma 6 23

• ## Social media/Big Tech
  • Hegseth criticized social media companies for banning Trump after the January 6 insurrection: “It's not just government authoritarianism, this is corporate authoritarianism. This is technological. … This is moral authoritarianism which is the idea of being woke, you can only have one particular point of view.” Fox News, :{Fox & Friends:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [1/8/21]
  • Ramaswamy declared that Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple were a part of the “woke industrial complex.” Fox News, :{Tucker Carlson Tonight:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [1/29/21]

Facebook

• • Mandel blamed the “woke people behind the screen at Facebook” for the platform disabling ads for her group Heroes of Liberty, saying “users are triggered by seeing conservative content.” Fox News,:{ Fox & Friends:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [1/4/22]
  • Fox & Friends guest and conservative author John Cribb claimed that an advertisement for his latest book was rejected by Facebook because it had received praise from former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, and consequently “tripped up some woke algorithm or woke ad-checker at Facebook.” Fox News, :{Fox & Friends}:, [1/28/21]

Google

• • Hilton claimed, “Google is working with organizations to impose a woke agenda on schools in terms of reading this to children in schools.” Fox News, :{Fox News Primetime:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [4/30/21]

Twitter

• • Dhillon blamed the suspension of the Article III Project’s Mike Davis’ Twitter account on “woke young people” staffing the platform and following “politically powerful voices with blue checks.” Fox News, :{Tucker Carlson Tonight:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [5/16/22]
  • Morgan complained about Twitter’s “very woke workforce who have basically been shadow banning conservative commentators from Twitter for a long time,” and that they’ve “been almost exclusively banning people on the right without banning people on the left for similar offenses.” Fox News, :{Fox & Friends:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [10/31/22]
  • Roberts reported that Elon Musk is “pushing to weed out the woke at Twitter.” Fox News, :{America Reports:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [11/17/22]

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/facebook-right-leaning-pages-are-leading-conversation-about-trumps-arraignment

===

===

an 2 23  ?

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/google/youtube-just-reinstated-trump-and-its-weak-policies-will-allow-him-spread-harmful

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/trump-called-protests-meta-profited-his-newly-reinstated-facebook-page

===

https://www.alternet.org/debbie-schultz-wasserman/

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)**d**id not hold back when she interrogated a Fox News legal analyst for offering “pure conjecture” during an appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives' newly established committee for the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

On Thursday, February 9, Fox News' Jonathan Turley, appeared before the committee as a witness called by Republican lawmakers. During his appearance, he discussed the so-called "Twitter files," which spawned from Twitter CEO Elon Musk sharing intel with journalists.

However, Wasserman Schultz appeared unsure about Turley actually having “unique knowledge” about the social media platform.

READ MORE: Holocaust meme-tweeting House Republican casts only 'no' vote on resolution condemning antisemitism

“Do you have any formal relationship with the company?” she asked.

“No, I just have an account,” replied Turley, to which, Schultz said, “So essentially your responses to the questions here today were your own opinion and pure conjecture.”

But despite Turley's remarks, Schultz pushed back for more clarity saying, “You said that you don’t have any specific or unique knowledge of Twitter, but you spoke as if you did. ... And so this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a Twitter account user?”

“No, I come to give legal analysis based on facts that are in the public domain,” Turley said.

READ MORE: 'In a heartbeat': Analysis explains why Florida Dems believe DeSantis might take the Trump route and attempt a coup

Refusing to back down, Schultz offered Turley a harsh lesson on the real meaning of "legal analysis specifying that it is “another word for ‘opinion.'”

Watch the video below or at this link.

===

===

an 2 23

no lnx etc

House Oversight Committee hearing held this week to purportedly prove that former Twitter executives colluded with federal government officials to cover up a 2020 New York Post article about Hunter Biden's laptop did not pan out the way Republican members hoped, The Daily Beast reports.

:{:{}:

}:

Per CNN, hard-right GOPers in the House, including Rep. James Comer (R-TN), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), have allotted a significant amount of time to push their "factually unsupported narrative" that the so-called "collusion" is designed to suppress conservatives.

Ex-Twitter executives Yoel Roth, James Baker, and Vijaya Gadde, and Anika Collier Navaroli testified during the hearing that "it was a 'mistake' to briefly block the article over misinformation concerns," but they ensured the House members that there was no government involvement, Daily Beast reports.

READ MORE: GOP Congressional candidate encourages violence over the information surrounding Hunter Biden laptops

During the hearing, Comer asserted that Twitter intentionally abided by demands from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to cover up the Hunter Biden story "because they were 'terrified of Joe Biden not winning the election,'" according to CNN.

However, the GOP member's accusation backfired.

The former Twitter executives not only proved that there wasno government involvement in the Hunter Biden Laptop story, but also testified that former President Donald Trump "received preferential treatment for years" and "directly requested the site remove tweets that he didn’t like," according to The Daily Beast.

:{:{}:

}:

Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly showed that it was Trump's administration that attempted to have content removed in 2019 after model Chrissy Teigen tweeted that Trump is a "p***y a** b****."

And on the other hand, President Joe Biden's administration never called on the social media giant to have content taken down.

READ MORE: GOP lawmaker vows to investigate Twitter employees who may have helped to censor news on Hunter Biden's laptop

A former senior Trump aide told Rolling Stone, “It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office]."

:{:{}:

}:

“It was normal," the aide added.

Additionally, CNN reports Navaroli "testified that the social media company ended its ban on abusive language against immigrants to 'go back to where they came from' so that Trump would not face repercussions for his racist 2019 attack on four minority Democratic congresswomen."

Still, the GOP members remain steadfast in pushing their theory.

:{:{}:

}:

“My, my, my—what happens when you hold a hearing, and you can't prove your point?” Connolly asked.

WATCH: Marjorie Taylor Greene 'wrongly' declares her Twitter ban as illegal

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Elon Musk has invited 'suspended' journalists to return to Twitter, but there’s a 'catch': report ›

'A huge oxymoron': Marjorie Taylor Greene's tweet condemning 'candidate quality' quickly backfires on Twitter ›

Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Tulsi Gabbard in Twitter rant for giving George Santos 'zero grace' ›

GOP lawmaker vows to investigate Twitter employees who may have helped to censor news on Hunter Biden's laptop ›

===

===

1 23 fresh air purple team  FB key in j6?

cal sil vly pass?

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/26/1151360750/social-medias-role-in-jan-6-was-left-out-of-the-final-report

DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I am Dave Davies, in for Terry Gross, who's off this week. Meta, the owners of Facebook and Instagram, announced Wednesday that both platforms will restore the accounts of former President Donald Trump, ending a two-year suspension that began after the assault on the U.S. Capitol in 2021. The congressional committee that investigated the January 6 riot spent considerable effort looking into the role of social media in assembling the mob and fueling the violence. But very little of their evidence and findings made it into the committee's 800-page final report.

Our guest today, Washington Post reporter Drew Harwell, is part of a team of reporters who brought those findings into the public sphere. They wrote an article about a 122-page memo investigators circulated among the committee based on their interviews with employees of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other tech platforms as well as other research. They found that tech companies failed to act on their own employees' warnings about violent rhetoric growing on their platforms in part out of reluctance to penalize conservatives, particularly then-President Trump. Drew Harwell is a technology reporter for the Post. He was part of an international reporting team that won a George Polk Award in 2021. Before he joined the Post in 2014, he worked for the Tampa Bay Times.

...

HARWELL: Yeah, we had a story on January 5 that was all about just the volume of rage you could see on these sites. It was not hidden at all. It was very overt. It was very direct. It was, you know, maps of the U.S. Capitol. It was bridges into D.C., where people suspected there would be police checkpoints. It was strategies on how to sneak firearms into D.C., where they are banned. It was really a road map for literally what we saw happen on January 6. And we had been following disinformation around the election for months. And you could tell that on that day, it had really reached a fever pitch. I mean, there was clear mobilization.

And so the question at the time was, what's going on with these companies that we can see this in plain sight? Shouldn't there be something more robust to tackle these very direct calls for violence and threats and lies about the election being stolen? And at the moment, we didn't really know how bad it was inside of these companies. But, you know, now we get a sense of there was a real, clear failure here - not just political, but from these companies that really run the backbone of how we all communicate with each other.

DAVIES: In a general way, how much effort went into looking into the role of social media companies by the staff of the January 6 Committee? I mean, do you have any general sense of - I don't know - how many interviews, what kind of documents? How much effort went into looking into this?

HARWELL: A lot. I mean, in the committee, there were multiple teams approaching this question from different angles. There was a - specifically a purple team that focused on social media and its role in the violence. And they were experts, political staffers, smart people who were part of this committee. And they sifted through tens of thousands of documents from more than a dozen of these big tech companies. They interviewed executives, former employees. They assessed thousands of Twitter messages from Trump and his supporters and many other people. They had subpoena power, so they could really get information.

I mean, they - we have rarely seen a federal body with this kind of people power and resources look into social media. And, you know, you understand why because this was a massive event in American history. And so when they started out, they really had a big concentration of power here looking at this problem. And you could see that in this hundred-page memo, they really focused on this problem very, very specifically and very concretely. And they had a lot of material to back it up.

DAVIES: Right. Which raises another question - why didn't this get more attention in the final report?

HARWELL: Yeah, so that was what we were really kind of interested in. When the final report came out late last year, the material that the purple team had uncovered was almost totally absent. You know, there was this 800-page final report that really didn't dig into social media as an entity in this problem. It was very focused on Trump and his orbit, which were important. But the purple team was dismayed at how much was left on the cutting room floor. And so that was kind of what we wanted to find out when we did our reporting.

And from, you know, a number of interviews with people who were sort of close to this process and understood, their takeaway was that some of this was shaped by political sensibilities, right? You had people on this committee who were reluctant to make this a battle with the tech companies. They didn't want to get in this tit for tat with these very important American firms. And some of those people were congresspeople with jurisdictions in California close to Silicon Valley. So that was a factor of it. There was also some worry from these committee members that they didn't want to distract from Trump.They wanted to keep this really tightly focused on Trump because they worried about the message getting diluted.

But, you know, one other factor in this was that focusing too much on social media cast an inconvenient glimpse at not just far-right QAnon people, who were very conspiratorial, but also the Republican Party itself and its role in tolerating this kind of chatter online from Trump and Americans at large. So there was a worry that, you know, digging in too much on these issues was going to reflect poorly on, you know, Republicans as a party. And so the result of that was the report ended up being a bit watered down. And a lot of this incisive material about social media, which is really important in everybody's lives not just on this day but every day, just was left out.

DAVIES: You know, it's interesting. On that particular point, I do recall, you know, the co-chair, Liz Cheney, the Republican, sharply condemning her Republican colleagues who, as she put it, were defending the indefensible. You think there was still some sensitivity on not holding Republicans to account for their complicity in the social media end of this?

...

davies: ...

You know, it's interesting. There was some mention in the public hearings of the committee in July of Twitter. They played testimony from a former Twitter employee saying that the platform had given Donald Trump special treatment. The employee was anonymous at the time. It was audio, not video, and in fact, the voice was distorted to protect the employee's identity. You later interviewed this employee on the record, right? You want to tell us a bit about her?

HARWELL: Yeah, that's right. Her name is Anika Collier Navaroli. She worked for Twitter for several years, including on the day of January 6 and before. And her role was as a legal expert on the safety policy team helping Twitter craft rules for how to approach content, protect the free speech of what people were talking about, but also take down calls to violence, set up clear red lines against extremism, and just play this kind of middle role of trying to protect the platform. So she had a really interesting view on this, and, you know, she had seen the company approach geopolitical issues all the time, right? Riots and political unrest. How do we approach this? How do we allow - what do we allow in terms of protest language that doesn't go too far over the edge?

So she was cognizant of these things and her feeling as the election became this moment where Trump was saying that the vote had been stolen - she had been seeing Twitter really erupt with a lot of people kind of mobilizing their messaging, going from just sort of vague anger to real clear directions of where they were going to go, what they were going to do, and how much they felt like Donald Trump was talking to them. You know, this whole stand by, you know, call that he gave for the Proud Boys. So, you know, she, inside the company, was pushing them - and not just her, but others, too, pushing the company to enact some new rules that would just take a tougher stance on this. One of these was a policy - she called it coded incitement to violence. So incitement to violence is not allowed on Twitter, but you can sort of code it a little bit - right? - and this is what people were doing. They were saying, I'm locked and loaded, but not specifically say where they were going. And yet, you know, by the context of it, it was pretty clear.

So she could see there was starting to be more talk of bringing guns, more talk of really sowing this anger against the federal government, and she was pushing the company to do more. And, you know, what she told the committee, and what others ended up telling the committee as well, was that Twitter was really resistant to any kind of rule that could have helped on January 6th. I mean, they passed some policies, but the company employees who spoke to the committee felt like it was just clearly not enough, and they felt like some of what happened on January 6th was really inflamed by the company's lack of action and reluctance to delve into these issues and to, really, even hold former President Trump to account for what he was saying on Twitter as well.

DAVIES: Right. Of course, Trump loved Twitter. I mean, he did tens of thousands of tweets over the years. Was Twitter's management motivated in part, according to these employees, by them enjoying the spotlight, enjoying being Donald Trump's chosen social media vehicle?

HARWELL: Yeah, 100%. I think that was the most stunning claim she made, and that was one that was a real headline from one of the committee hearings, which was that Twitter, in her words, protected Trump because he was a star.You know, he had brought a large amount of attention and clout to Twitter. Twitter in social media is effectively an also-ran, right? They're not a Facebook or an Instagram or a TikTok. They're a news platform, and Donald Trump helped make Twitter into a very influential company. And so in her words, she felt like the company had become deferent to Trump because they felt like they couldn't punish somebody who was beneficial in this way. There was kind of a mutually beneficial arrangement here.

But there were other people who spoke to the company, too, from inside Twitter that also suggested that there was some fear of the backlash of being too tough on Trump. And, you know, even before January 6, Trump had always been very infamous for what he would say on Twitter, as anybody who was online during those years knew. I mean, it was a lot of borderline or over-the-line tweets that people were wondering, why is Donald Trump able to talk like this on the platform? Anybody else who was sharing these kinds of messages would be treated differently, and this is what Anika ended up saying to the committee - was that he was treated differently. He was given special treatment because of this impactful role he had in the company....

:{:{}:

}:

You know, I will say Facebook had stood up some election integrity efforts even before January 6 that were about, you know, if somebody posts something about the election being stolen, we're going to post a disclaimer that actually that's false. We're going to link you to proactive, right, accurate information. Facebook had very notably disbanded those efforts before January 6. I think they sort of felt like the election's over; we're not needed anymore. That was specifically called out as an institutional failure that could have led to some of these things. But it all sort of came back to, could the company have done more, taken down more, been more active in addressing these calls to violence? And would that have made any difference on January 6?

DAVIES: There was also mention in this memo that you and your colleagues found of a white list that Facebookkept of certain accounts that were exempted from the fact-checking that would occur on other accounts. Among the people on that list -Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. Glenn Beck, Gateway Pundit, various other conservative things. Did the committee find that troubling, the committee's investigators?

HARWELL: Yeah, they did. I mean, this was clearly special treatment for very high-profile people with big audiences who were known for saying things that would otherwise be fact-checked. Yeah, this was an issue because here was Facebook making a technically defensive position that would help the company, but that would actually contribute to a lot more lies and misinformation being spread to general users. So yeah, there was a feeling that this was a secret list that was not shared with the general public that was not just damaging their experience, but actively fostering these false narratives that, you know, many of which became pretty central to January 6. And there was a frustration that these elite provocateurs were getting to play by a different set of rules than anybody else.

DAVIES: And what, if anything, did Facebook executives say in defense of this to the committee?

HARWELL: Their argument was that this is a way to streamline the moderation process, right? These are people who - anything they say that becomes a controversy for Facebook, they want to handle at a high level and treat them with a different pair of gloves than people like you and me. I mean, you know, Facebook's argument in some of this is that these are people who will be targeted for, you know, mass reporting or, you know, will just sort of be at the center of a lot of kind of mucky battles. So they want to have a bigger, sort of different level of special treatment for these folks.

But, you know, I think what it ends up being is that these people can break rules, push the boundaries without penalty or consequence. And you certainly saw this with Donald Trump on Twitter where his profile cannot not even be accessed in the same way as anybody. He was constantly, no matter what he said, he was on zero strikes forever. And there was nothing he could say that would really push him over the line until we actually saw January 6. So this was a clear sort of technical measure that had become really problematic for the committee and for the general public...

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. And we're speaking with Drew Harwell. He is a reporter for The Washington Post and was part of a team that wrote recently about investigative material developed by the staff of the January 6 Committee that didn't make it into the committee's final report that dealt with how social media platforms failed to address online extremism and threats of violence in the weeks that led up to the January 6 assault.

The investigators were pretty thorough about this. They also looked at YouTube, found certainly some failings in their efforts to restrict content. YouTube was very influential. And they also looked at less-well-known platforms and sites, you know, Reddit and Tik-Tok. And some of these - in addition, some of these alt tech and really fringe sites, you know, Parler and Gab and 8kun, some of these things that were really places, I gather, where participants in the January 6 assault were really communicating directly about their intentions and plans, right?

...

HARWELL: Yeah, it is difficult. You know, I think when this process began, people were hoping that this final report would give us some clarity with, you know, the imprimatur of the federal government saying let's pass new regulations to require either no auditing and transparency of these companies or to threaten punishment against social media executives when you see failures like this happen again. You don't see any of those policy recommendations in the report. You see the committee effectively telling the companies to do a better job in policing themselves. And, you know, that goes back to what some of the committee folks were telling us, which was that this was a missed opportunity. Here was a chance for the federal government to say social media is a critical part of Americans' lives. And we want to set a framework for the productive use of it and keep people safe. But instead, the conclusions ended up really being a reflection of just how little ground we've made on this issue, which is a complicated issue, but is still one that is really important to us. So I think people came away from it with a lot more questions than answers.

DAVIES: You know, it's been alleged by conservatives for quite some time that social media are biased against them and that you can see that in their decisions. The investigators did test that in some cases, didn't they, I mean, to see whether that was generally true with some of the larger social media platforms? What did they find?

HARWELL: Yeah, what they found was really contradictory to that point. I mean, and that point has been something that Elon Musk was sharing in the Twitter files that has been the main cause celebre of Republicans in Washington, which is that Silicon Valley is a bunch of Californian techies who are against us and are tearing us down. They're using social media to silence and censor us. And it's unfair, you know? And the committee tested that. And from the many interviews and the many thousands of pages of documents, I mean, what they found was, really, the opposite. I mean, people like Donald Trump, viewpoints like stop the steal, were given a huge amount of leeway.

I mean, in Trump's case, he effectively was not punished for saying the same sort of things that would have knocked anybody else off the platform. He was really treated in a special way so as to keep his account on Twitter for years. And, you know, so he was really - instead of being sort of unfairly censored, he was elevated and promoted, which was, you know, totally the opposite of what people were conveying in the Twitter files. And so I think that was one big surprise from this whole investigation, which was that, really, these Twitter employees were worried that Twitter had not gone far enough and that some of that silence or reluctance to be more aggressive had contributed to what we ended up seeing happen at the Capitol.

DAVIES: Well, Drew Harwell, thanks so much for speaking with us.

===

===

an 12 22

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a top-ranking lawmaker who is expected to take over the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee, has rolled out his plans for the panel's agenda for next year when Republican lawmakers take over the House chamber.

According to NBC News, the Ohio lawmaker is planning to take aim at the Big Tech industry starting with letters addressed to the CEOs of Amazon, Alphabet, the Apple Corporation, Facebook's parent company, Meta, and Microsoft.

In the letters dated Wednesday, December 21, the Republican lawmaker "demanded information about what he called 'the nature and extent of your companies’ collusion with the Biden Administration.”

READ MORE: Clarence Thomas' Wife Goes to Bat for Rep Jim Jordan - Claims He's 'Under Attack' Because 'He Threatens the Elite'

Per the news outlet, Jordan also "demanded documents and communication going back to January 2020 between employees and contractors of the companies and anyone affiliated with the executive branch of the government pertaining to 'moderation, deletion, suppression, restricting, or reduced circulation of content.'"

However, Jordan didn't stop there. As a fierce critic of Big Tech, he's also requested a list of company employees who were tasked with "developing content moderation policies, now or in the past, as well as third-party groups, companies or people the company has consulted on content moderation policies."

As part of Jordan's formal request, he is also asking for the documents to be provided by 5pm on December 29 and requesting that existing and future records are preserved.

Despite Jordan's claims, Big Tech firms have denied the allegations of biased actions and stand by their efforts to enforce the community guidelines outlined in their policies.

READ MORE: 'A lot of explaining to do': Jim Jordan slammed on Twitter for contradictory remarks about 1/6 call to Trump

Many of the companies addressed in the letter have not responded to the network's request for comment.

READ MORE: 'That was not on our account!' Jim Jordan gets defensive after being cornered over pro-Kanye tweet

===

===

https://boingboing.net/2022/12/07/hannity-doesnt-know-where-gop-voters-got-the-idea-that-mail-in-ballots-are-bad-while-gingrich-threatens-to-abolish-tiktok.html

===

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-host-says-kids-committed-suicide-because-twitter-didnt-amplify-conservative-covid

===

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/right-wing-media-use-musk-and-taibbis-twitter-files-baselessly-allege-election-interference

many lnx twt

Right-wing media use Musk and Taibbi’s “Twitter Files” to baselessly allege election interference and call for Twitter employees to be jailed

Even conservative radio host Sebastian Gorka was “underwhelmed,” saying that there “wasn’t government suppression”

WRITTEN BY NATALIE MATHES, RUBY SEAVEY & JACK WINSTANLEY

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PAYTON ARMSTRONG & ZACHARY PLEAT

PUBLISHED 12/06/22

right-wing media are using Twitter CEO Elon Musk and journalist Matt Taibbi’s release of “The Twitter Files” to baselessly portray the company’s decision to suppress a story about Hunter Biden as having influenced the results of the 2020 presidential election. Going further, some right-wing pundits have even called for those Twitter employees responsible for the decision to be prosecuted and imprisoned.

On December 2, Taibbi posted a supposed first installment of “The Twitter Files” in a lengthy tweet thread. Musk claimed that the report would document “free speech suppression” regarding Twitter’s decision to block links to an October 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. However, the files revealed very little information that was not already public and largely showed what many analysts noted as healthy internal debate rather than sinister collusion to suppress free speech.

Taibbi pointed to several discussions within the files as evidence of collusion between Democrat officials and Twitter employees to suppress potentially damaging information about the Biden family in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election. One of these exchanges included an email from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) questioning the logic behind Twitter's actions. Another thread showed that Twitter executives, at the supposed request of a Democratic official, “handled” a number of tweets containing stolen pictures of Hunter Biden’s genitals. (Twitter removed those tweets under its non-consensual nudity policy.) 

“The Twitter Files” failed to reveal meaningful evidence of collusion and represent another stumble in Musk's Twitter takeover

Twitter founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey had previously acknowledged that Twitter made mistakes in its decision to suppress the story, a sentiment which other now-former executives have echoed. Dorsey had even testified before Congress to explain the same claims that Musk, Taibbi, and right-wing media have incorrectly framed as being hidden from the public,” and an analysis by Washington Post columnist Philip Bump determined that Twitter’s actions around the Hunter Biden story did not cost Donald Trump the 2020 election. As Bump explained, “there’s no evidence that the restriction imposed by Twitter (or Facebook) actually kept interested people from learning about the story.”

Continuing their insatiable appetite for the Hunter Biden laptop story, however, right-wing media figures cited Taibbi’s reporting as clear evidence that Big Tech meddled in the 2020 election, while others claimed Joe Biden was involved in blocking the unconfirmed New York Post story, baselessly asserting that the White House colluded with Twitter on this decision. (Biden had yet to be elected in October 2020 and was still on the campaign trail when Twitter decided to suppress the story.) Additionally, some right-wing media figures conceded that the Twitter Files were “not the smoking gun we’d hoped for,” yet still insisted that Taibbi’s report showed a clear “violation of the First Amendment.” 

Right-wing figures used Taibbi’s report to baselessly claim that Twitter “colluded” in the 2020 election by suppressing the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop

• :{:{On Twitter, Fox host Laura Ingraham called for Big Tech to be reined in, comparing Twitter blocking the unconfirmed story about Hunter Biden to Russian interference in U.S. elections. In a December 2 tweet, Ingraham said, “Russian interference & meddling? Tonight we expose Twitter interference & meddling in the 2020 campaign. Sleazier than we thought—it’s time to rein in Big Tech. GOP better do it.” :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:Twitter, [12/2/22]}:
• Students for Trump founder Ryan Fournier claimed that Joe Biden won the 2020 election because Twitter helped him, calling the report “damning.”Fournier tweeted on December 2, “The Twitter Files release is damning. Everything we believed is being confirmed true. Twitter colluded in the 2020 election and helped Biden win.” Twitter, [12/2/22]
• Far-right conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec asserted that Twitter’s decision to suppress the New York Post story amounted to a “digital insurrection.” Twitter, [12/2/22]
• ----
• judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who helped Trump devise a strategy to claim that the 2020 election was stolen, claimed the Twitter Files proved that Democrats and Big Tech worked together to get Biden elected. In a series of tweets, Fitton said that the “Democratic Party (DNC) colluded with @Twitter to censor opponents just before 2020 election. #ElectionInterference,” and claimed, “Assault on democratic gov't and more election interference CONFIRMED in @ElonMusk's @Twitter files.” Twitter, [12/2/22; 12/2/22]
• Conservative comedian Terrence K. Williams insinuated that the suppression of the Hunter Biden story was the reason Trump lost the 2020 election. On December 2, Williams tweeted, “Twitter interfered with the 2020 Election and those involved should be held accountable. President Trump should be in the White House right now.” Twitter, [12/2/22]
• On Fox & Friends, co-host Pete Hegseth chalked up Twitter’s actions to election interference while acting as “an arm of the Democratic National Committee.” Co-host Steve Doocy admitted that “there is no smoking gun per se,” but Hegseth erroneously claimed that voters didn’t “get to read about” the heavily covered Hunter Biden story, “which means they're not factored in when they vote, which is the definition of election interference.” Fox News, :{Fox & Friends}:, [12/5/22]

Right-wing figures attacked Biden for Twitter’s actions, with some alleging collusion between the White House and Twitter even though Biden wasn’t president yet

• • Jack Posobiec attempted to paint Taibbi’s report as evidence to impeach Biden. On Twitter, Posobiec called for an impeachment inquiry into Biden because “the Twitter Files show Twitter was Censoring [users based] on Direct Requests from the Biden Team in October 2020.” Twitter, [12/2/22]
  • Conservative commentator Buck Sexton claimed that the story constituted a “massive scandal, and Biden should rightly be IMPEACHED for it.” Twitter, [12/2/22]
  • ---
    • fox News host Jesse Watters wrongly characterized Biden as the sitting president in 2020 to assert collusion between Twitter and the White House. He incorrectly asserted, “The Biden White House had a direct line to challenge and take down content they didn't like.” Fox News, *Jesse Watters Primetime*, [12/2/22]
    • On Fox’s Hannity, guest Tammy Bruce claimed that Twitter and Facebook were acting as “agents of the state” in suppressing the story.Bruce ended her appearance by bizarrely asserting that Twitter had single handedly “abolished” the First Amendment. Fox News,*Hannity*, [12/2/22]

Right-wing figures demanded that Twitter employees involved in blocking the New York Post story face prosecution or jail time

• • • Terrence K. Williams called for “every Twitter employee who interfered in the 2020 Election” to be arrested. Twitter, [12/2/22]

[twt]

• Fox host Jeanine Pirro said on Fox & Friends Weekend that the Twitter Files story “amounts to election interference, and when have you the suppression of the First Amendment – free speech – that results in election interference [but not hush money to hookers], there’s got to be a prosecution.”She also insisted that “we already know” Trump would have won the election if Twitter did not suppress the Hunter Biden story. Fox News, *Fox & Friends Weekend*, [12/4/22]

Right-wing pundits expressed disappointment that Musk and Taibbi didn’t reveal a “smoking gun” but insisted that Twitter violated the First Amendment

• • • Conservative radio host Sebastian Gorka admitted to being “deeply underwhelmed” by Taibbi’s thread, saying: “We know the Dems in DC collude with the Dems in Palo Alto. Big Whop. Need a paper trail of felonies. Elon better have that.”Gorka went on to explain during a Twitter Spaces Q&A with Musk on December 3 that what Taibbi cites in his thread doesn’t show government suppression, isn’t a First Amendment violation, and therefore isn’t “a smoking gun.” Twitter, [12/2/22; 12/5/22]
    • Washington Free Beacon reporter Andrew Kerr tweeted that none of the photos referenced by Taibbi “appear to show Hunter engaged in illegal activities.” He went on to call it “newsworthy that team Biden was asking Twitter to remove any tweets period.” Twitter, [12/2/22]
    • Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross tweeted that “there has to be an interesting story on how Twitter decided to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story, but we didn’t see it tonight.” He added, “FBI was meeting with Twitter on a weekly basis in 2020. Let’s see the docs about that.” Twitter, [12/2/22]
    • Right-wing personalities the Hodgetwins tweeted, “It % is, collusion between govt. and big tech to violate the First Amendment.” The tweet was in reply to one from Musk saying, “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” Twitter, [12/2/22]
    • Tom Fitton said that the Twitter files “further confirm” the Democratic Party’s “opposition to the First Amendment.” Twitter, [12/2/22]

• [twt]
  • • miranda Devine, a New York Post columnist who writes frequently about Hunter Biden and Big Tech, confessed on Fox’s Tucker Carlson Tonight that the Twitter Files were “not really the smoking gun we'd hoped for.” She went on to accuse Musk of withholding documents that “law enforcement specifically warned off Twitter from our story.” Fox News, *Tucker Carlson Tonight*, [12/2/22]
    • Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett claimed that “Musk deserves a medal for revealing how the Biden campaign, FBI and media censored the Hunter Biden scandal.” In an opinion piece published at FoxNews.com, Jarrett alleged that “the Biden campaign team and Democratic operatives —with a key assist from partisans at the FBI— applied pressure on the social media giant Twitter to block the story.” He later wrote that “it is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to engage in censorship either overtly or covertly,” which “includes the FBI manipulating or coercing companies to behave as proxies to accomplish otherwise prohibited censorship.” Fox News, [12/6/22]

The hollow revelations of the Twitter Files come amid Musk’s supposed free speech crusade since taking control of the social media platform, marked by the CEO giving special attention to extremists, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. Twitter’s internal algorithms have already demonstrated a bias in favor of right-leaning accounts, and Musk’s high-profile actions have only further mainstreamed fringe narratives on the platform.

an 12 22

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) isvowing to bring Twitter employees before Congress as part of an investigative effort to determine how they may have censored reports on Hunter Biden's laptop during the 2020 election cycle.

On Friday, December 3, the Kentucky lawmaker appeared on Fox News where he spoke with guest host Jason Chaffetz who asked him about the report written by Substack journalist Matt Taibbi. According to Taibbi's report, there was an "organized effort at Twitter" to suppress the circulation of the story.

Mediaite reports that "Taibbi, whose source was Elon Musk, reported Democrats and Republicans both had back channels that killed unfavorable tweets."

READ MORE: ['House of cards': Twitter employees warn of 'nightmare' scenario that will make platform unreliable on election night

According to the news outlet, the journalist also claimed "internal Twitter files showed Democrats had more channels that were used to suppress unfavorable tweets and initial reports on Hunter Biden’s laptop."

Chaffetz, also a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee said, “They can’t figure out how to justify this type of suppression. What can Congress, what can the Oversight Committee do, and where are they going to go next with this?”

The Republican lawmaker responded by sharing his intent as chairman of the committee. "When I take your old position as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, I can promise you this: every employee at Twitter who was involved in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story will have an opportunity to come before Congress and explain their actions to the American people," Comer said. "This was a huge story."

He added, "When we announced the investigation of the Biden family and referenced material from the laptop, many in the mainstream media said this is just a conspiracy theory. The mainstream media is still trying to use the old talking points the laptop is somehow Russian disinformation."

READ MORE: Twitter rolls back COVID misinformation policy — opening the door for the resurgence of conspiracy theories

According to Comer, Musk's decision to share Twitter's files with Taibbi suggests there was some form of collusive effort to diminish the circulation of reports on the social platform. The Republican lawmaker also commended theNew York Post for its original report which was published in October 2020.

He concluded by saying, “We are going to have every person at Twitter in front of the House Oversight Committee."

Watch the video below or at this link.

===

===

12 22 mma  claimed by vincent j

KIRK (TPUSA PRESIDENT): If you would've asked the question six months ago, I was extremely pessimistic about the status of free speech. But Elon has changed the game. I gotta tell you, he has been an unexpected entry into this entire dynamic. Because I used to say, you know, we got to have section 230 reform and have all these different things. I still believe that.

But, man, him spending 44 billion dollars to go purchase a company – to go restore Donald Trump's Twitter account and let all these people back online and all these prisoners of war from the meme wars, I mean it is – it's fair. They're POWs, God bless them. That's a big threat to the regime.

===

===

an 10 22

United States Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) on Tuesday accused Google and other "big tech" companies of rigging the November midterm elections in favor of Democrats.

"This is something that appears to be intentional and purposeful. So you have to ask, are they doing this as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic campaigns? Now, our Republican conference has met with Google and also one of our major mail vendors, and the answers we got from Google were not satisfactory," Blackburn complained to Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.

Blackburn's foremost allegation was that Google has been "intentionally" directing Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio's reelection campaign emails into recipients' junk boxes.

READ MORE: [Marsha Blackburn admits she voted against veterans bill to shaft Democrats

"And you take a campaign like Marco Rubio's, where they intentionally suppress his emails – or I should say it's the appearance that they intentionally suppress – they go out on delay and they arrive and they arrive in people's spam folders," Blackburn said. "And it happens repeatedly."

That claim was thoroughly debunked in a July investigation by TheWashington Post. Conservative commentator Erick Erickson even conceded on Substack that the issue was the direct result of sketchy marketing practices and right-wing incompetence:

These are not examples of Google abusing Republican emails. This is an example of Republican consultants abusing emails they have access to and Google and Apple protecting their users from spam. Unfortunately, the Republican consultants have the ears of their leaders and their solution is to pressure Google and Apple to let all the spam go through. They are selling Republican elected officials on the idea that Google is nefariously blocking their emails. The reality is the consultants will not fess up to their abuses. They will not own up to their poor stewardship of email lists. They’ll claim the Democrats are more effective because of tech company biases and not because the Democrats are actually better stewards of an email file.

The reality though is easy to notice.

But Blackburn is still pushing the false narrative, telling Bartiromo that "you have to look at how big tech is trying to use their power, just as they did in 2020, to help to manipulate the result."

Watch below or at this link.

===

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/candace-owens/go-woke-go-broke-right-wing-media-call-boycotting-paypal-over-proposed-misinformation

===

{{  kos ref

paywall

OPINION REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Climate-Change Censorship Campaign

The left is demanding that social media shut down debate even on solutions.

By The Editorial Board Follow

Oct. 5, 2022

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

WSJ Opinion: Hurricane Ian and Mitigating the 'Climate Crisis' Threat

Play video: WSJ Opinion: Hurricane Ian and Mitigating the 'Climate Crisis' Threat]

Politicians tell us that events like Hurricane Ian are symptomatic of a 'climate crisis' that can only be solved by net-zero carbon emissions. But some scientists believe the focus should be on mitigation and innovation. Images: NASA via AP/Reuters Composite: Mark Kelly

Elon Musk said this week he’ll buy Twitter after all, and the hopeful view for online speech is that his rockets-and-flamethrowers heterodoxy might be an answer for what ails social media. He won’t have it easy. On Tuesday more than a dozen environmental outfits, including Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote to the big tech companies to blame them for “amplifying and perpetuating climate disinformation.”

What the letter asks for sounds modest, but the implication is clear. The Digital Services Act recently enacted by the European Union includes transparency rules, and the green groups want Silicon Valley “to commit to including climate disinformation as a separately-acknowledged category in its reporting and content moderation policies in and outside of the EU.” Then they could proceed to complain that the tech giants aren’t doing enough censoring.

Continue reading your article with

a WSJ membership

==

https://dailycaller.com/2022/10/04/climate-disinformation-hate-speech/

kos ref

POLITICS

Enviros Are Demanding Big Tech Treat ‘Climate Disinformation’ Like Hate Speech

Two-thirds of conservativesfeel[ings, nothing more than...] like social media is censoring conservative voices, according to a poll.

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

BRONSON WINSLOW

CONTRIBUTOR

October 04, 2022

A coalition of environmental advocacy groups has requested that the CEO’s of major social media platforms stop the spread of “climate disinformation” by censoring user posts, according to a Tuesday letter.

Addressed to the CEOs of Facebook, TikTok, Google, YouTube, Twitter and Pinterest, the letter claims that climate disinformation should be censored because it “undermines” the government’s ability to efficiently and effectively respond to the climate. The coalition asserted that social media companies are directly responsible for “amplifying and perpetuating” disinformation and should be completely transparent to show the “exact extent” of damage done.

Social media platforms will be forced to follow the guidelines of the coalition following the approval of the Digital Services Act (DSA), according to the letter. The coalition urges the platforms to “fulfill their obligations” and agree to its terms before the DSA takes effect.

The platforms are urged to “commit to including climate disinformation as a separately-acknowledged category in its reporting and content moderation policies in and outside of the EU,” the letter said. “More specifically, we urge platforms to commit to recognizing climate disinformation as a specific reason within the statement required under DSA Article 15(1), and include data on content moderation decisions related to climate disinformation as stated under Article 23.”

The platforms “owe it to their users and the planet” to stop amplifying climate disinformation that undermines the coalitions’ ability to combat the climate crisis, the letter said. The letter ended by informing each CEO that a written response and signature is required after conforming to the coalitions’ new standards.

Friends of The Earth did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Tags : censorship climate change social media

https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Count-The-Climate-Sign-On-Letter-1.pdf

To: The CEOs of Facebook, TikTok, Google & YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest From: Civil Society Groups Concerned with Climate Disinformation Date: October 4, 2022

RE: It’s Time for Platforms to Count the Climate

The climate crisis has become increasingly apparent as the July heat wave across Europe broke records in Spain, and we saw deadly floods in eastern Kentucky destroy local communities and wildfires burning from France to California. Unfortunately, the spread of climate disinformation undermines governments’ ability to efficiently and effectively respond. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has even named climate disinformation as a threat to the world’s ability to effectively address climate change. The UN Secretary General António Guterres recently mentioned the threat of misinformation, proliferated by social media companies, in a recent General Assembly speech and tweet. Social media companies bear responsibility for their role in amplifying and perpetuating climate disinformation but transparency, that would quantify the exact extent, has been lacking from all platforms. The Digital Services Act has passed in the EU, and its obligations for platforms will take effect very soon. We’re writing to ask platform leaders to fulfill obligations set forth in the DSA, and to commit to including climate disinformation as a separately-acknowledged category in its reporting and content moderation policies in and outside of the EU. More specifically, we urge platforms to commit to recognizing climate disinformation as a specific reason within the statement required under DSA Article 15(1), and include data on content moderation decisions related to climate disinformation as stated under Article 23. Platforms owe it to their users and the planet to stop amplifying the climate disinformation that undermines our ability to combat the climate crisis. We call on your companies to implement these actions as soon as possible and request a written response addressed to the signatories below.

Regards, ● 350.org ● Accountable Tech ● Action for the Climate Emergency ● Center for Countering Digital Hate ● Check My Ads ● ClimateVoice ● Digital Climate Coalition ● Exposure Labs ● Friends of the Earth ● Greenpeace ● Green Latinos ● Institute for Strategic Dialogue ● Stop Funding Heat ● Union of Concerned Scientist

https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/28/climate-change-maga-republicans-extremists-la-times/

POLITICS

Climate Change Is Turning MAGA Republicans Into ‘Extremists,’ Columnists Claim

pix Fairview Fire Fire burns in California REUTERS/David Swanson]

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

LAUREL DUGGAN

SOCIAL ISSUES AND CULTURE REPORTER

September 28, 2022

Climate change is turning Republicans in western states into extremists due to the discontent sparked by water scarcity, heat and related government policies, two Los Angeles Times columnists argued.

Wildfires, droughts and worsening heat, which the authors link to climate change, is contributing to extremism among supporters of former President Donald Trump in California, columnists Anita Chabria and Erika Smith argue. That trend will accelerate if political leaders impose further environmental restrictions that have a disparate impact on rural residents orforcibly relocate them over fire concerns,they claim.

“There’s no denying that the extremist turn of MAGA Republicanism is flourishing throughout the state’s pastoral parts,” the authors wrote. “As climate change worsens, water gets more scarce and the land becomes hotter, drier and harder to live upon, this discontent could very well metastasize into violence. That’s especially true if California uses financial leverage to discourage rebuilding fire-destroyed towns and encourages rural denizens to move to more defensible places.” (RELATED: ‘Full Of Anger, Violence, Hate’: Biden Goes After ‘MAGA Republicans’ Of Congress During Labor Day Speech)

The state’s environmental policies tend to have an outsized impact on rural residents, who are generally more conservative than city-dwellers, such as orders to stop using river water to irrigate fields, according to the columnists. As California struggles with water scarcity and wildfires, some worry that the state could force the relocation of its rural residents by blocking rebuilding efforts in fire-prone areas.

“Floods, fires and hurricanes cause tens of thousands of temporary evacuations every year, displacing people from homes, jobs and schools and making them more susceptible to — or victims of — extremist propaganda,” the piece read.

One source stated without evidence that anti-government sentiments in the western U.S. were deeply linked to antisemitism.

“They all believe that the U.S. government has been captured by Jews,” said Alexander Reid Ross, an extremism expert at Portland State University, referring to the west’s “extremists.” He told the outlet that the longtime relationship between the western anti-government cowboy ethos and antisemitism was “supercharged” and mainstreamed through the MAGA movement.

Chabria and Smith did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Tags : california donald j trump los angeles times maga maga republicans

https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/28/russell-brand-censorship-hypocrisy-youtube-covid/

ENTERTAINMENT

Russell Brand Claims Hypocrisy After Being Censored On YouTube

LEENA NASIR

ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER

September 28, 2022

Russell Brand accused YouTube of hypocrisy on Tuesday after the platform censored one of his videos.

One of Brand’s videos was removed from YouTube, which cited “misinformation” as the reason. In a separate video, Brand took a moment to explain his error. He then showed a clip from a mainstream media outlet that remains active on YouTube but, Brand claimed, should have been removed if the platform’s standards were fairly enforced.

“We have been officially censored by YouTube. They took down one of our videos for misinformation, but why are big media organizations not censored for misinformation in the same way?” Brand said in a video posted to his Twitter account.

“Is it because YouTube are part of the mainstream media now?” Brand asked.

“Earlier this month we did a video about the changing narratives around COVID, the pandemic and COVID treatments, in which we cited information on official government websites, which we misinterpreted,” he said. Brand explained that his error was claiming that the National Institutes of Health were “recommending” a particular COVID treatment  when in fact the NIH was merely “trialing” the treatment.

Brand appears to have been referring to ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication that skeptics of the COVID-19 vaccines suggested as an alternative treatment for the virus despite statements from public health authorities discouraging the practice. Check Your Fact, an affiliate of the Daily Caller, concluded in September that claims that the NIH had approved ivermectin to treat the virus were “misleading.” The NIH website states that ivermectin “is being evaluated to treat COVID-19.”

Brand added that he had issued an apology video immediately upon realizing the error. YouTube removed the first video and issued an official warning to Brand’s account. Brand then removed the apology video, citing concerns that he might incur further penalties from YouTube if he happened “to reiterate the claim while apologizing for it.”

The original video is available on right-wing video hosting platform Rumble, but it contains no mention of the NIH and is 12 minutes and seven seconds long, compared to the 14 minute and 51 second version shown in a screenshot from his Twitter video, suggesting that Brand cut the offending section before uploading the video toRumble. Brand also said he plans to continue posting his material to Rumble in the future.

“That’s the reason we’re joining them: because they’re not going to censor our content,” Brand said. (RELATED: KOLB: Some Online Censorship Is Necessary To Protect Against Truly Harmful Speech)

“We made an error — in my opinion a relatively small error — and we’re being penalized. To me, that looks like censorship,” he added.

Brand then shared a clip that aired on MSNBC in March 2021 which anchor Rachel Maddow claimed people vaccinated against COVID do not get sick and do not pass the virus to others. This clip remains accessible on YouTube despite the fact that it discounts the possibility of breakthrough infections, which became widespread after the Omicron strain hit the U.S. in late 2021, according to Fox News.

“The reason I think that looks like censorship is that there’s mainstream media misinformation up all the time,” Brand said.

Tags : censorship mainstream media russell brand youtube

LEENA NASIR

https://dailycaller.com/author/Leena/}}:

===

input demlabs legum marr d'souza

no lnx

2.2M

The number of 'DC Enquirer' Facebook engagements over 10 days, vs. 1.5 million for 'The Washington Post.'

Popular Information

Andrew Paul

Feb. 24, 2022

Facebook is losing the battle against misinformation, right-wing political spamming, and algorithmic manipulation according to a — sadly unsurprising — deep dive from Popular.info that centers on the many loophole exploitations of a pro-MAGA website, DC Examiner. If that name doesn’t ring a bell for you, then you are most certainly not alone: The site, run by a Trump operative named Brandon Gill, only first came into existence on January 8, with its inaugural article just published on January 19.

And yet, despite its nascency, DC Examiner somehow managed to garner nearly 2.2 million page engagements on Facebook over the past 10 days — roughly 700,000 more than The Washington Post during that same time period. Once again, this kind of ultra-rightwing propaganda has been allowed to spread profusely thanks to simple exploitations of Facebook’s platform, and it doesn’t look like it’s showing any signs of slowing down, either.

A MULTI-PRONGED ATTACK — As Popular.info explains, both Gill and his wife, Danielle D’Souza-Gill (yes, daughter of that D’Souza), actively post to DC Examiner, but their key to success is the massive network of other Facebook pages to amplify their work. Groups like “America First,” “Keep Texas Red,” and “Conservative Americans” all operate essentially as shell pages that almost instantly repost DC Examiner’s content. Often these posts are nearly identical to one another, but that doesn’t really matter. Each of these separate pages still garner tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of hits, thus allowing Gill and his wife to net that much more traffic.

SUPPOSEDLY AGAINST THE RULES — Of course, this kind of coordinated spamming is allegedly a big no-no, according to Facebook policy. Clearly, however, the company isn’t doing nearly enough to monitor this kind of malicious activity, a failing that’s even more glaring when a clear example can be found in a site that is eclipsing publications like The Washington Post barely a month after debuting.

===

===

Yet as Bongino’s show has grown in popularity, he is increasingly relying on websites and platforms he has an ownership stake in, giving him more control over his content and greater potential for profit.

:{:{}:

}:

Late last year, he launched Bongino Report, his alternative to Drudge Report, and he routinely posts his links on social media to drive to the site. This summer, he announced he’d become an investor in Parler, the right-wing social media site pitching itself as an alternative to Twitter or Facebook that has become a safe harbor for banned figures like far-right commentator Alex Jones. Bongino has formed a similar partnership withRumble, a video platform trying to siphon traffic away from YouTube.

===

grassly big in ~ soc media bias BS? why?

town hall

8 22 bs

fBI Responds to Zuckerberg's Claims About Hunter Biden's Laptop

Sarah ArnoldSarah Arnold|Posted: Aug 28, 2022

FBI Responds to Zuckerberg's Claims About Hunter Biden's Laptop

The FBI responded to claims made by Meta CEO and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, saying that it “routinely notifies” social media companies of potential threats.

During a podcast interview with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg told the host that Facebook’s restrictions surrounding the New York Post’s 2020 article on Hunter Biden were based on FBI misinformation warnings. 

The Post’s article reported that data recovered from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden included emails which indicated that President Joe Biden used his position and power as then- vice president to help his son, Hunter, in business dealings with Ukraine.

Zuckerberg claimed that Facebook suppressed stories on the platform related to the article on Hunter Biden and his laptop after the FBI warned the social media company to be aware of potentially polarizing content. 

:{:{}:

}:

“The FBI has provided companies with foreign threat indicators to help them protect their platforms and customers from abuse by foreign malign influence actors,” the agency said in a statement. 

In response to Zuckerberg’s comments, many speculate that Facebook censored information that may make Biden look bad ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

“[The FBI] routinely notifies U.S. private sector entities, including social media providers, of potential threat information, so that they can decide how to better defend against threats,” according to the agency.

twt

chuck g

We now know Facebook censored spread of Hunter Biden laptop story after FBI approached them. FBI & Facebook/Big Tech interfered in 2020 election Facebook acted as an arm of govt Both Facebook & FBI should b ashamed of interfering in our electoral process

Recommended

Judge Might Grant Something ‘Special’ for Trump Following FBI Raid

Matt Vespa

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that big tech interfered with the election so that results came out favorable for Democrats.

:{:{}:

}:

“FBI & Facebook/Big Tech interfered in 2020 election Facebook acted as an arm of govt.,” Grassley said in a tweet.

===

===

8 22

https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/im-not-conceding-far-right-laura-:{loomer-blames-big-tech:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:-after-losing-gop-congressional-primary/

===

aha 7 22

debate a subvariant of?  :  BIG you-name-it silences /gags the right and punishes brave truth tellers

recall ur- proto myth that conservatives cannot win elections or even compete in the mktplace [heh] of ideas b/c liberal mainstream media hollywood limosine [jewish]  liberals and prof pinkos brainwash ppl in general and kids in particular; as media shifts to soc media, Big Tech [Gates // soros] are bag guys. the left then pressures  WOKE corps (including tech but even NFL and even beloved military. now trickled down tto public schools kid indoctrinate CRT and even groomer.

BS

https://censortrack.org/case/citizens-renewing-america

INSANE! Twitter Censors Anti-Critical Race Theory Account

Kayla Sargent

June 11th, 2021

Twitter’s rampage against conservatives has not stopped with the platform now seemingly taking its orders from the left.

Rachel Bovard, Senior Director of Policy for the Conservative Partnership Institute, said that Twitter suspended the conservative think tank Citizens for Renewing America (CRA) after the group posted resources combating Critical Race Theory (CRT). She tweeted: “So @amrenewctr issues a toolkit for parents to help stop CRT in schools, Media Matters issues a baseless and wildly untrue hit on the Center, and mere hours later, Twitter suspends their account. Big Tech working very hard to protect racist ideologies from criticism.” Her tweet included a screenshot of what appears to be a message from Twitter that said, “We’ve temporarily limited some of your account features.” Bovard is a MRC Free Speech America board advisor. 

CRA President Russ Vought provided more insight as to why the organization’s content may have been suspended. “Twitter is now saying that our Renewing America accounts were suspended by ‘enforcement bots’ but wouldn't tell us what was flagged. This occurred soon after we launched an important anti-CRT tool kit and a radical left outlet put forward wild conspiracy theories about it,” he tweeted.

CRA recently published a toolkit for “Combatting Critical Race Theory in Your Community.” The toolkit said: “This guide is meant for anyone of any knowledge and experience level who is concerned about what children are being taught and how they are being treated, with an emphasis on making the banning of Critical Race Theory (CRT) the central theme by which you reclaim your schools.”

Leftist group, Media Matters for America, however, called the toolkit “a conspiracy theory about the overthrow of America’s constitutional system.” It also somehow drew an arbitrary connection between the toolkit’s language and what the organization called the “infamous white nationalist march in Charlottesville, Virginia.”

Media Matters for America received more than $1.5 million from liberal billionaire George Soros between 2010 and 2014.

Twitter has long silenced conservative voices on its platform. Its massive push to censor conservative voices resulted in the platform receiving a “F” grade from the Media Research Center in its first Big Tech Report Card. Twitter removed former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol after he called for “peace.” The platform also slapped a “sensitive content” label on a graphic from the MRC. The graphic described the results of a recent poll in which fifty-three percent of respondents answered “no” to the question: “Should biological men be allowed to compete in women's sports?” 

Twitter did not respond to a request from MRC Free Speech America to confirm whether it had suspended CRA.

===

===

jesse jane duff

===

oddly high soc media rank for geezer? boost by twit? other rw celebs?

note ~ soc media bias BS mma 7 22

• ## ...Out of the top 10 posts with the most interactions that Media Matters analyzed, 6 were from right-leaning Facebook pages
• These 6 posts were from Newsmax, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, and Fox News, which had 2 posts. Out of these 6 posts, half contained industry talking points or attacked the administrative state and federal agencies that the right has villainized for enforcing lockdowns and vaccine mandates. These reactions and the sources cited in them further demonstrated the decision as a victory for the fossil fuel industry and its conservative allies which helped orchestrate this result to line their pockets and hinder progress on climate action.

Among the top examples from right-leaning pages that contained misinformation was a post from Ben Shapiro with nearly 22,000 interactions that linked to an article from the Daily Wire. The article quoted Heritage Foundation research fellow Daren Bakst, who claimed that the court had rightfully blocked the EPA from overstepping its boundaries and that only Congress can make certain regulatory decisions under the Constitution.

The Heritage Foundation has received millions of dollars in funding from Koch-connected organizations, as well as considerable funding from the fossil fuel industry, while outwardly denying the scientific consensus on climate change. The foundation has also played a major role in moving courts to the right, and even created a secretly financed program to train law clerks to elevate its views. According to The New York Times, Heritage helped the Federalist Society compile the lists of potential Supreme Court nominees from which President Donald Trump chose to appoint Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Both justices voted to stifle the EPA. However, the Daily Wire article ignored these connections between the conservative think tank, its financial backers in the fossil fuel industry, and the court’s ruling. 

The article also quoted Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who baselessly claimed that the Clean Power Plan would “lead to higher utility bills, job loss and overall increased energy prices.” While these regulations were never implemented, the plan was predicted to have cut electricity bills by 7% and deliver up to $34 billion in health benefits.

• [twt ben shapiro]
• Many of the top 10 posts, particularly those from right-leaning pages, framed the decision primarily as a victory against the EPA’s ability to enforce regulations – or what Mike Huckabee referred to, in a post that received more than 11,000 interactions, as “the reign of tyranny by unaccountable bureaucrats.” A post from Sean Hannity that garnered 14,000 interactions also linked to an article on his website describing the decision as a “blow to climate extremists” and calling to “unleash American energy.”[twt]
• The top left-leaning post, which was from historian Heather Cox Richardson and had over 61,000 interactions, provided an overview of several recent and upcoming Supreme Court decisions and pointed out that the court set a precedent in West Virginia v. EPA using legal reasoning that was even rejected by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in 2001. She also highlighted excerpts from Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent pointing out that Congress already delegates power to federal agencies to address issues where it does not have expertise.

Another popular left-leaning post about the case from former President Barack Obama,which had over 55,000 interactions, mentioned climate impacts on vulnerable populations and urged Congress to “pass President Biden’s climate and clean energy investments.” Though right-leaning posts received more engagement overall, Richardson and Obama’s posts each had twice as many interactions as the top right-wing misinformation posts.

• the top Facebook posts about the ruling from left-leaning pages, which accounted for 3 of the top 10 posts, criticized the decision while highlighting various grievances with how the court came to its decision and what impact the ruling will have on the communities being affected by the climate crisis. [twt]
• The only post about the case from an ideologically nonaligned Facebook page in the top 10 came from CNN. It received just over 12,000 interactions and linked to a fairly detailed article putting the decision in the context of urgent calls from scientists to cut emissions and transition away from fossil fuels, and citing the 2021 report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which called the climate crisis a “code red” for humanity.

Although left-leaning and nonaligned pages were vocal about the gravity of the Supreme Court’s decision, the right was was still able to co-opt much of the conversation on Facebook, shifting attention and blame away from the small group of right-wing figures and industry executives who benefit from the ruling to hamstring environmental protections in the face of the worsening climate crisis, leaving the rest of us to grapple with an uncertain future.

• none of the top 10 posts outlined how, as The New York Times puts it, the case “is the product of a coordinated, multi-year strategy by Republican attorneys general, conservative legal activists and their funders, several with ties to the oil and coal industries.” Some only mentioned the court case in passing – for example, a popular post with more than 16,000 interactions from controversial documentarian Michael Moore referenced the case once among a host of other political grievances in a “declaration.”...

===

===

mass de-plat after insurrection thus target woke corps, soc media bias BS

===

:{https://dailycaller.com}::{ › 2020 › 11 › 24 › media-censoring-negative-joe-biden-news-cost-donald-trump-election-mrc-poll}:

:{Media Censoring Negative Biden News May Have Cost Trump The Election ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

The Media Research Center polled Biden voters across various swing states and found that if they were made aware of various news stories the media buried, votes would have changed enough to give President Donald Trump a second term. ... five were about Trump successes that the media largely suppressed, according to the MRC. Without the alleged ...

:{https://www.newsbusters.org}:

:{Newsbusters | Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible. ... Trump Remarks at NRA Meeting . Tim Graham . Video MRC's Houck ...

---

:{:{}:

:{https://ussanews.com}::{ › 2022 › 05 › 01 › factual-criticism-of-biden-administration-was-censored-hundreds-of-times-during-his-presidency-study}:

:{Factual Criticism of Biden Administration was Censored ... - USSA News:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

The Biden administration is being protected by a veil of censorship being carried out by Big Tech giants, a two-year study carried out by the Media Research Center has found. "Big Tech's campaign to protect President Brain-Dead Biden and his agenda has continued unabated," MRC reported.

:{https://pjmedia.com}::{ › election › tyler-o-neil › 2020 › 11 › 09 › report-big-tech-media-stole-the-election-by-burying-biden-china-scandal-n1132603}:

:{Biden Won Because Media Buried China Scandal, Poll Finds - PJ Media:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

A Media Research Center (MRC) poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates found that 36 percent of Biden voters were not aware of the evidence behind claims that Joe Biden was personally involved in...

}:

===

===

6 22

odd split?

the United States Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Texas violated the Constitution with a bill banning social media companies from the regulation of hate speech on their platforms.

"Supreme Court halts Texas social media law that critics say would require Facebook and Twitter to require hate speech, extremism," Bloomberg News court reporter Greg Stohr reported.

The majority decision was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Jr., Elana Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

"To be clear, the headline here is *not* the dissent; it’s that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett *all* voted to block HB20," wrote University of Texas Law Prof. Steve Vladeck.

"That’s a pretty powerful sign of where #SCOTUS is heading on this case—and issue—even if the dissent’s analysis is … alarming," he explained.

===

===

what exactly caused this?

an 1 22 no lnx twt

Befuddled conservatives react to Dan Bongino being banned from YouTube

Meaghan Ellis January 27, 2022

Befuddled conservatives are not pleased with YouTube's decision to permanently ban right-wing political commentator Dan Bongino from its platform. According to Newsweek, many of Bongino's conservative fans have taken to social media to express their disapproval of the video-sharing platform's decision to remove "The Dan Bongino Show."

"@YouTube banned @dbongino for speaking the truth! The problem is they just don't want you to hear it...... The End!" tweeted Graham Allen, a conservative U.S. army veteran who is currently running for a Congressional seat in South Carolina.

Brent Bozell,President of Media Research Center News Busters, also weighed in to suggest that Bongino's ban was biased. "Now YouTube has permanently banned Dan Bongino—one of the most popular conservative stars around. Yet, the news media still pretend there's no censorship of the right. Conservatives better wake up. The press never will," Bozell tweeted.

Bongino's ban follows a week-long suspension from YouTube earlier this month after he claimed in one of his videos that masks are "useless" in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Trump enthusiasts Diamond and Silkalso chimed in with their disapproval of the ban tweeting, "YouTube bans Dan Bongino, but everyone who pushed Russia Collusion, which was a lie, still has their channels!"

Prior to his channel being banned, Bongino had nearly 900,000 subscribers. However, his Rumble account currently stands at 2 million. Now, conservative commentator Jeremy Frankel also tweeted to encourage Bongino's YouTube audience to follow him on Rumble as an alternative.

"YouTube's loss. At least now we all know it's the Communist echo chamber they always wanted to be but never could admit to being. Subscribe to @dbongino's Rumble channel: https://rumble.com/Bongino," conservative commentator Jeremy Frankel tweeted.

As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, YouTube incorporated strict policies to combat the spread of misinformation on its platform. From conspiracy theories to misinformation about COVID-19, the vaccine, and the presidential election, YouTube has removed a number of accounts belonging to right-wing influencers contributing to the spread of harmful information.

Like most right-wing figures who have been kicked off mainstream social media platforms, Bongino will likely turn his focus toward alternative avenues to spread his message.

===

==

hayes

: Kevin McCarthy understands Republicans like him are not the future of the party.

The troll caucus—Gosar, Greene, Gaetz, Boebert—"they are where the Republican Party is headed

===

Marc Morano

Weekly update · October 8, 2021

NEWS

Google's Climate Crackdown: A conversation with Marc Morano | Washington Examiner

Washington Examiner

In this interview, ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano tells Doug McKelway, the tactic is another step that big tech and its progressive allies have ...

Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant

Marc Morano Debunks #COP26 Climate Extortion in "Green New Deal: The Great Regret ...

Canada NewsWire

Marc Morano will debunk COP26 climate extortion in his presentation "Green New Deal: The Great Regret" on Oct. 6, 2021, at 7 p.m. MDT for part two of ...

Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant

Marc Morano, who is anti-vax, anti-mask and pro-insurrection, is suddenly worried about (left ...

Red, Green, and Blue

Marc Morano, who is anti-vax, anti-mask and pro-insurrection, is suddenly worried about (left) political violence? 0. Published on October 4th, 2021.

Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant

Representatives, sparked by critical federal report, express frustration with leaders of ...

Yahoo News

7h ago. More From. Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner. Google's Climate Crackdown: A conversation with Marc Morano. 31m ago. Washington Examiner ...

Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant

White House wants Central America to step up as new wave of migrants heads north - Yahoo News

Yahoo News

Google's Climate Crackdown: A conversation with Marc Morano. 29m ago. Washington Examiner. Most of world agrees to set 15% global minimum tax as holdouts ...

Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant

EXCLUSIVE: Experts BASH Big Tech for Reported Demonetization of So-Called 'Climate Denial'

NewsBusters

Climate experts Steven Milloy and Marc Morano bashed Google/YouTube for reportedly vowing to prohibit ads on videos questioning climate change.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/catherine-salgado/2021/10/08/exclusive-experts-bash-big-tech-reported

no lnx

EXCLUSIVE: Experts BASH Big Tech for Reported Demonetization of So-Called ‘Climate Denial’

Catherine Salgado

October 8th, 2021 12:48 PM

The atmosphere for content creators with Google just reached a new freezing point. YouTube and parent company Google reportedly plan to demonetize all content from so-called “climate deniers.”

Climate experts Steven Milloy and Marc Morano bashed Google/YouTube for reportedly vowing to prohibit ads on videos questioning climate change. “This is Big Tech Collusion with the government,” Morano stated. “Google’s demonetization is an admission that we are winning, a treasure far more valuable than Google ad revenue,” Milloy said.

Climate Depot publisher Morano said, “Google is simply doing the bidding of the federal government and global groups like WHO and the UN. Google is implementing a policy that says you officially cannot disagree with the claims of your government or quasi-government organizations. This is Big Tech collusion with the government.”

Morano compared the Google/YouTube climate video ban to recent COVID-19 restrictions: “They have labeled as ‘misinformation’ any COVID claims that were not in line with WHO, and now they will do the same with any climate claims that are not in line with the UN climate panel.” Morano said, “For decades the progressive movement has tried to impose and sought a one-party state in America.Climate activists [like] Tom Friedman on the pages of The New York Times extolled the virtues of China’s one-party system.”

He continued: “When COVID came along, they were able to achieve their long-sought vision of no dissent under essentially a one-party state in the once free West. John Stossel has already faced the wrath of the climate censors of Big Tech.” Morano warned, “Big Tech has shut down COVID lockdown dissent [and] vaccine mandate dissent, and now they have their sights set on climate ‘denial.’” Morano also indicated he fears his video series, the Morano Minute, will soon be banned.

Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com, told MRC Free Speech America, “Demonetization of websites that expose the climate hoax does nothing but validate what climate realists have been saying for years: It’s not about the climate; it’s about the political power. If what we were saying was wrong, we would have been laughed off the Internet long ago. Instead, reality is validating us and public support for climate idiocy is going nowhere.”

Milloy even added that “Google’s move will have no effect on climate realist web sites for the simple reason that the ad revenue is pretty trivial.” “We do it because we oppose the abuse of science, especially as it is being used to advance totalitarianism.”

Google and YouTube will no longer allow ads or creator payments which allegedly contradict “‘well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change,’ the company’s ads team said in a statement,” reported Axios. Google promised to consider “context” and said it consulted “experts,” including from the United Nations, Axios wrote. Axios called the move “one of the most aggressive measures any major tech platform has taken” regarding climate change.

Google and YouTube are increasing censorship through demonetization. YouTube has also reportedly demonetized fishing and hunting videos. Grabien, “which provides a suite of tools for newsmakers and curates its own original news content,” had its channel on YouTube demonetized in August. Google also demonetized a Daily Mail column from Piers Morgan criticizing gymnast Simone Biles for abandoning her fellow U.S. gymnasts at the Tokyo Olympics in August.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact YouTube here or send feedback and contact Google at (650) 253-000 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

===

mma 1021

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/facebook-tweaked-its-news-feed-algorithm-and-right-leaning-pages-are-reaping-benefits

...The top 10 pages that earned the most interactions between January 1 and September 21 were:

1. Ben Shapiro, a right-leaning page which earned nearly 392 million interactions on nearly 25,000 posts.

Occupy Democrats, a left-leaning page which earned over 280 million interactions on over 10,000 posts.

Fox News, a right-leaning page which earned nearly 275 million interactions on over 12,000 posts.

Dan Bongino, a right-leaning page which earned nearly 208 million interactions on over 6,000 posts.

Daily Mail, a right-leaning page which earned over 166 million interactions on nearly 35,000 posts.

UNICEF, an ideologically nonaligned page which earned over 156 million interactions on over 1,000 posts. (UNICEF has partnered with Facebook for public health education, and Facebook’s info panel has been boosting the page’s posts.)

Breitbart, a right-leaning page with over 150 million interactions on over 13,000 posts.

Newsmax, a right-leaning page with over 130 million interactions on over 15,000 posts.

CNN, an ideologically nonaligned pagewith nearly 130 million interactions on over 14,000 posts.

10  Trending World by The Epoch Times, a right-leaning page with more than 117 million interactions on nearly 9,000 posts.

In comparison to 2020, there are two new right-leaning pages in this year’s top 10 list: Newsmax and Trending World by The Epoch Times. Newsmax’s newfound popularity on Facebook seems to follow a similar trend as its viewership, which increased as former President Donald Trump simultaneously promoted the right-wing outlet and criticized Fox News during his final months in office, while Trending World by The Epoch Times appears to have found success by promoting video-based content in accordance with Facebook’s tweaked algorithm.

Right-leaning pages earned nearly three times more average interactions for video content than posts containing links -- and far more than other political and news-related pages

Facebook often focuses on how posts with links are used to spread misinformation, but photos and videos posted by right-leaning pages also spread sensational, false, and divisive content. 

Between January 1 and September 21, right-leaning pages earned nearly 2.3 billion interactions on roughly 1 million posts with links -- or roughly 2,300 average interactions per post.

During the same time frame, right-leaning pages earned nearly three times more average interactions per post with video than per post with links. Roughly 188,000 posts with videos from right-leaning pages -- including native videos, live videos, and YouTube videos -- earned over 1.2 billion interactions, or nearly 6,500 average interactions per post.

In fact, of the top 100 posts from right-leaning Facebook pages in 2021, 82 were posts with native video, earning roughly 120 million interactions, including posts from Donald Trump Jr., Fox News host Sean Hannity, and other conservative voices that featured sensational content: [VIDS]

Sean Hannity_facebook post_20210530

Benny Johnson_facebook post_20210511

Don Jr_facebook post_20210120

Don Jr_facebook post_20210119

While ideologically nonaligned pages posted the most links and videos during the studied time period, it was right-leaning pages that earned the most interactions for each of these post types. Most notably, right-leaning pages accounted for roughly 30% of all posts with videos from political and news-related pages, but they earned nearly 60% of the interactions.

Proportion of posts with links and proportion of interactions for these posts:

Ideological breakdown of posts with links (and interactions earned) on Facebook pages posting about politics_updated

Proportion of posts with videos and proportion of interactions for these posts:

Ideological breakdown of posts with videos (and interactions earned) on Facebook pages posting about politics_update

Average interactions earned per video post by right-leaning pages increased from 2020 to 2021. The same for ideologically nonaligned and left-leaning pages decreased.

Right-leaning pages earned more average interactions per post with video than other political and news-related pages in both 2020 and 2021. In fact, right-leaning pages earned nearly 6,500 interactions per post with video in 2021, which is more than the average 5,600 interactions per post with video in 2020.

Comparatively, nonaligned pages and left-leaning pages both earned less average interactions per post with video in 2021 than the previous year. Left-leaning pages earned roughly 2,000 interactions per post with video, less than half of the 4,200 interactions per post with video earned in 2020. Ideologically nonaligned pages earned roughly 1,800 interactions per post with video in 2021, slightly less than the 2,000 interactions per post with video in 2020.

Right-wing media outlet The Epoch Times earned significant engagement on seemingly innocuous videos, which can be a bridge to more extreme content

Of the top 100 posts from right-leaning Facebook pages this year, 53 were native videos from two Facebook pages affiliated with right-wing media outlet The Epoch Times, which has often spread pro-Trump conspiracy theories alongside its affiliate New Tang Dynasty (NTD). Its Facebook pages The Epoch Times and Trending World by The Epoch Times have roughly 15 million combined followers, and these 53 videos earned over 82 million interactions.

Between January 1 and September 21, the two pages posted nearly 20,000 times, and 62% of those posts featured links. Links to articles from the right-wing media outlet included pro-Trump talking points, misleading and false COVID-19 and vaccine information, election misinformation, misleading information about the January 6 insurrection, and anti-Biden talking points.

Notable posts with sensational and false content from The Epoch Times include:

The Epoch Times_facebook post_20210923

The Epoch Times_facebook post_20210107_2

The Epoch Times_facebook post_20210107_3

The Epoch Times_facebook post_20210918

The Epoch Times_facebook post_20210502

While the majority of posts from these two Facebook pages included links, nearly all of their interactions -- over 195 million, or more than 95% of total engagement -- were earned on posts with videos (native videos, live videos, and YouTube videos). In fact, seven of the top 20 posts from all political and news-related pages during the same time frame were seemingly innocuous videos from The Epoch Times’ two pages. These videos earned hundreds of millions of views. However, these videos can easily lead users to more extreme content from The Epoch Times, including misinformation, if they follow links in other posts on the pages.

Trending World by The Epoch Times_facebook video_20210615

Over 3.7 million interactions and 39 million views

Trending World by The Epoch Times_facebook video_20210720

Over 3.5 million interactions and 78 million views

The Epoch Times_facebook video_20210629

Over 3.4 million interactions and 93 million views

===

BS trifecta:

an 721

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) suggested on Sunday that Joe Biden's administration may use "computer-generated graphics" to fake the president's speeches.

Nunes made the remarks during an appearance on Fox News after he was asked about Biden's performance at a recent CNN town hall event.

"You know it's getting bad when the propaganda machine that the Democratic socialists control in this country -- they control 95% of the media or so," he opined. "And then you take the big tech oligarchs that control and censor what we receive via social media. When that poison gets to the average independent American, that propaganda, you know it's bad when they can't even find a 15- or 30-second soundbite out of a full-hour town hall that they can plug into their own propaganda machine."

Nunes added: "I mean, it's getting really bad. It's not just the president. They can't get any soundbites from the vice president either."

The Republican lawmaker claimed that deep state actors are "almost to the point where they're going to have to start using computer-generated graphics in order to give to the propaganda machine because they can't get good clips to sell what they're trying to sell here in Washington, which are policies that are running the country into the ground."

Watch the video below from Fox News.

===

see soc media bias BS

Unhinged' GOP congressman claims Google 'absolutely' changed its algorithm to 'move 15 million votes' to Biden

David Badash The New Civil Rights Movement

July 09, 2021

**U.S. Rep Ken Buck** (R-CO) says Google flipped 15 million votes away from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Buck last year, on tape, as the chair of the Colorado GOP, allegedly tried "pressuring an El Paso County GOP official to falsify election results in the State Senate District 10 race."

"Google, by the way, changed its algorithm, in ...

===

===

Gizmodo

Project Veritas 'Whistleblower' Complains Fox Station Suppressed Bitcoin Reports

Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2020. Photo: Samuel Corum (Getty Images).]

2 days ago

no lnx many

Project Veritas's latest video is underwhelming even by its own miserable standards.

Tom McKay

Depending on your political outlook and/or how much paint you’ve huffed lately, the far-right activist group Project Veritas is either a groundbreaking conservative investigative outlet or a group of dweebs doing an unending series of pratfalls and faceplants for your amusement. Just kidding, it’s the latter, always. Point in case: Their latest “scoop.”

For years, Project Veritas has employed conservative activists and enlisted backstabbing insiders for a pantomime of investigative journalism, using secretly recorded and deceptively edited videos to smear liberal groups, tech companies, and perceived opponents of the conservative movement and, in particular, Donald Trump. They’ve also propped up a series of bogus whistleblowers claiming to uncover liberal corruption and who all conveniently seem to have crowdfunding accounts, like a United States Post Office employee who fabricated a story about vote-by-mail fraud in Pennsylvania.In their latest effort, Project Veritas convinced Fox 26 Houston general assignment reporter Ivory Hecker to secretly record her colleagues in some sort of effort to discredit Fox News.

Now let’s get one thing straight: Fox News sucks. It’s a lousy propaganda machine for racists and other right-wing zealots, and the same could be said of many of its affiliates and local stations. But that’s not what Hecker sought to expose. Instead, she sought to portray the Fox owned-and-operated Fox 26 Houston as part of some kind of... liberal media conspiracy?

In a recent broadcast, Hecker told the station’s viewers that “Fox Corp has been muzzling me to keep certain information from you, the viewers” and that “I am going to be releasing some recordings about what goes on behind the scenes at Fox, because it applies to you, the viewers.” She was promptly and justly fired. Project Veritas then released the supposedly shocking recordings, which are not shocking in the least. The Daily Beast reported that one of her primary complaints is that station staff didn’t want a deluge of primetime Bitcoin coverage:

READ MORE

Elon Musk Juices Bitcoin Price Yet Again With His Stupid Tweets

How the FBI Is Trying to Break Encryption Without Actually Breaking Encryption

Google Messages Is Finally Getting Support for End-to-End Encryption]

In one piece of surreptitiously recorded footage, Fox 26 assistant news director Lee Meier was seen explaining why the station does not do more stories on Bitcoin. In the clip, Meier said it’s “an editorial choice” to not cover the cryptocurrency because it likely would not appeal to the station’s early-evening broadcast viewership.

“I have passed on Bitcoin stories by almost every single reporter for our five o’clock audience, because that’s not our five o’clock audience,” Meier stated. “So, there are lots of reasons. If I know our numbers are tanking from five to six and in one particular segment… I may say, yeah, and Bitcoin for poor African-American audience at five, it’s probably not going to play. That’s a choice I’m making.”

In the Project Veritas video, the clip plays before Hecker tells founder James O’Keefe, “I want out of this narrative news telling! I want out of this corruption.”

That a local TV station is apparently “meh” about wall-to-wall primetime Bitcoin coverage is about the least juicy topic in the world. Local news, as the name implies, generally covers local issues that national outlets barely touch—a category that doesn’t usually include cryptocurrency. (Due to Project Veritas’s history of malicious editing, we can’t even be sure low-income Black viewers are the only demographic Hecker’s producer mentioned as potentially disinterested in wall-to-wall Bitcoin coverage.) What’s more, local states typically outsource much national news to wire services like the Associated Press or, in Fox 26 Houston’s case, Fox News. But this is apparently a moral outrage because cryptocurrency is popular with the type of libertarian convinced that people who don’t agree with them on everything fall into the two categories of either nefarious puppet master or gullible sheeple.

Hecker also apparently took issue with the station’s unwillingness to play uncritical coverage of hydroxychloroquine, an anti-parasitic drug that Trump promoted as a sort of miracle cure for the novel coronavirus. There was never more than weak evidence that hydroxychloroquine worked in the first place, and scientific studies eventually demonstrated it is essentially useless as a pandemic treatment. Hecker videotaped a call in which she was apparently dressed down by station management for sharing a video interview on Facebook with Dr. Joseph Varon, who said he had used the drug to “good success.”

Meier, the assistant news director, and Fox 26 vice president/news director Susan Schiller told Hecker during the call she had “failed as a reporter” and did not look at the “latest research” before sharing the post. Shiller told Hecker, “You need to cease and desist posting about hydroxychloroquine.”

At the time the video was posted on August 10, 2020, the original study promoting hydroxychloroquine had been debunked, the World Health Organization had ceased trials citing safety concerns, and the Food and Drug Administration had yanked its emergency use authorization in coronavirus treatment. Hecker’s rebuttal was that the scientific research showing the drug was not effective made Varon’s comments even more explosive, and she also cited Dr. Stella Immanuel, a religious minister who believes literal demons steal sperm from people while they sleep in order to breed via gay sex. Note that Fox 26 Houston was just fine with running Hecker’s coverage claiming Immanuel was a victim of censorship.

Varon, by all accounts a hardworking doctor, is part of a group known for promoting unsubstantiated and experimental treatments, and on August 2, the Texas medical board warned doctors not to promote hydroxychloroquine as a cure. Even more research showing hydroxychloroquine is not effective against the SARS-COV-2 virus came out in September 2020.

As the Daily Beast reported, Hecker also offered an apparently secretly recorded conversation between Hecker and a station staffer on the business side. That staffer mentioned that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was one of their biggest advertisers. This is the type of thing that absolutely no one but anti-vax losers would find alarming, and this is a group that apparently includes Hecker, who suspected the station could theoretically be advocating vaccines to get that sweet, sweet Big Epidemiology money. The Daily Beast wrote:

“So could the Ad Council call you and be like, ‘Hey, I want to run all these spots but I want to make sure your journalists aren’t running any anti-vax stories’?” the Project Veritas plant asked.

“If that happens, it’s above our [pay grade],” the promo producer replied.

“Does that stuff like that ever happen?” the Project Veritas operator pressed some more.

“It can, a lot of stuff can happen,” the sales coordinator responded.

It would of course be improper for advertisers to influence coverage. But the sales coordinator only suggests it’s theoretically possible advertisers could be pressuring Fox 26 Houston behind the scenes. This is something that any journalist can tell you happens all the time—the entire point is whether or not the bigwigs cave and order reporters to change their coverage, something the staffer explicitly said they weren’t aware of happening at the station. Besides, one would be hard-pressed to find a person working for a journalistic outfit that doesn’t have some vague suspicion that senior management could be up to no good. It’s fucking media!

This is all beside the point, as no news station should be running anti-vax conspiracy theories as news in the first place.

Finally, Hecker claimed that she met with Fox News to discuss a job offer, but was told she would have to “get in line with the narrative” to receive it. A company spokesperson told the Daily Beast she was never offered a job and the meeting was, apparently outside Hecker’s understanding, a “courtesy.”

This might have been a pathetic showing even for Project Veritas, whose past best hits included failing to trick the Washington Post into running additional hoax accusations against actually accused pedophile and former Senator Roy Moore and unsuccessfully plotting to get former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster drunk to record him talking shit about Trump. But that didn’t stop Hecker and O’Keefe from taking their best shot at cashing in.

At the tail end of the video, Hecker announces she wants a job where she can “tell true stories without fear of if it fits the corporate narrative.” O’Keefe added that she was “ready to pursue a career in independent journalism where she can report the news without fear or favor.”

While there’s no news yet as to whether a job at Newsmax or One America News might be in Hecker’s future, taking up with Project Veritas seems to have been extremely lucrative for her in the short term. A fundraiser on the Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo stood at over $90,000 as of early Wednesday afternoon. (Two others on GoFundMe had only raised a total of $240.)

“FOX 26 adheres to the highest editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality,” the station told the Houston Chronicle in a statement. “This incident involves nothing more than a disgruntled former employee seeking publicity by promoting a false narrative produced through selective editing and misrepresentation.”

Tom McKay

Tom covers tech, politics, online extremism, and oddities for Gizmodo. His work has appeared on Mic, Yahoo News, AOL, HuffPo, Business Insider, Snoop Dogg's Merry Jane, Wonkette and The Daily Banter.

Newsweek

Local Fox Reporter Tells Viewers Live on Air Network 'Muzzling' Her, Going to Project Veritas

... would be releasing recordings from Hecker on Tuesday night, along with a one-on-one interview with Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe.

3 days ago

Houston Press

Far-Right Group Unveils Fox Reporter's Secret Tapes

Project Veritas, the far right-wing organization founded and operated by conservative trickster James O'Keefe, is devoted to discrediting American mainstream ...

2 days ago

The Hollywood Reporter

Project Veritas Wants Supreme Court to Vindicate Secret Recordings

James O'Keefe's outfit asks the justices to step into his fight with Massachusetts over a law that bans the secret taping of public officials. By Eriq ...

1 month ago

Fox News

O'Keefe: 'More to come' after Project Veritas release docs revealing Facebook censoring 'vaccine hesitancy'

Investigative journalist James O'Keefe reacted on "Hannity" on Monday to exclusive documents and interviews that were provided to his Project ...

3 weeks ago

The AV Club

Meet Ivory Hecker, the reporter sabotaging her local news gig for conservative clout

demanded Hecker to Project Veritas founder, James O'Keefe, during their ten-minute video segment... a wish which was promptly granted to ...

23 hours ago

Fox News

Facebook whistleblower fired after leaking 'vaccine hesitancy' censorship documents to Project Veritas

In a video shared on Friday, Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe is seen crashing a virtual meeting Kahmann was having with his employer, ...

3 weeks ago

Orlando Sentinel

DeSantis signs Big Tech censorship bill, despite constitutional concerns

DeSantis was joined by GOP legislators but also gave a shoutout to James O'Keefe, a conservative whose Project Veritas has released ...

3 weeks ago

The Daily Progress

Clowdus' outdoor production of 'Oklahoma!' coming to ...

Casting for the production was announced Friday, and James O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, will lead the cast in the role of Curly.

1 month ago

Fox News

Facebook whistleblower raises over $500,000 after being fired for leaking to Project Veritas

Facebook whistleblower raises over $500,000 after being fired for leaking to Project Veritas. Morgan Kahmann leaked documents exposing ...

no lnx

Facebook whistleblower raises over $500,000 after being fired for leaking to Project Veritas

Morgan Kahmann leaked documents exposing Facebook's 'vaccine hesitancy' censorship efforts

By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

Media top headlines June 8

[Media top headlines June 8

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refusing GoFundMe money for abuela, a judge ordering Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to clarify policy that only granted interviews to journalists of color, and MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace agreeing that not passing Democratic voting bill would be like the ‘fall of the Roman empire’ round out today’s top media headlines]

Morgan Kahmann, the former Facebook employee who was fired after leaking the tech giant's "vaccine hesitancy" censorship efforts to Project Veritas, fundraised over half a million dollars to support his family.

Kahmann, a data center technician who initially came forward anonymously to the right-wing guerilla news outlet, revealed his identity after he was suspended by Facebook for sharing documents explaining "Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion" which shows the "goal" is to "drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy."

Following his ouster, Kahmann launched a viral fundraiser on the crowdsourcing site GiveSendGo, which exceeded $500,000in contributions on Monday from over 12,000 donors.

FACEBOOK WHISTLEBLOWER FIRED AFTER LEAKING ‘VACCINE HESITANCY’ CENSORSHIP DOCUMENTS TO PROJECT VERITAS

"The flood of donations, prayers and distribution of my story in the past weeks has been nothing short of a miracle," Kahmann wrote in the update on his GiveSendGo page. "There is a silent majority in this country who believe in truth and morality, and they have made themselves heard.My wife and I were uncertain when all this began, we were afraid of where this may take us, and how we could maintain stability for our family. Those worries have been taken care of by like-minded people donating to my fundraiser from around the globe."

"My family and I now have the resources to secure stability for ourselves, and we look forward to spreading this message of hope and providence. It only takes one person to stand up for what's right, to set an example for all to see, to inspire others. My message is this; whatever you do in your life, build it upon the solid foundation of God's truth, and you will not face any trial you can't overcome," Kahmann continued. "I am not some special person, I'm nothing but a regular guy from a small town in the USA, and that did not stop me, don't let it stop you. As for companies like Facebook, their days are limited. Do not relinquish your God-given freedoms to these tech tyrants. Stand up for the truth, no matter the cost, no matter the risk. Be brave. Do something. Our world depends on it."

Whistleblower who exposed Facebook's plan to censor content speaks outVideo

During an interview with Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe, Kahmann said the consequences of Facebook's actions and the ramifications if such practices are made across tech giants are "way worse than anything that can happen from me getting fired from my job."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In response to the leaked documents, Facebook told Project Veritas, "We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information."

Last week, Project Veritas shared leaked footage from an internal Q&A session at Facebook showing Mark Zuckerberg and other top executives discussing the Kahmann's leak and vowed that other leakers will be found and terminated. 

Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @JosephWulfsohn.

Fox Nation

===

===

soc med media BS?

an 521 me

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was left flustered on Monday when a mysterious package of white power was left at his doorstep. Almost immediately after the discovery, he sounded off and pointed the finger because he believed he knew who was behind it: 80s pop singer Richard Marx.

In a statement to Politico, Paul sounded off about the package as he described himself as a "repeated target of violence." He also slammed Marx, whom he described as "a C-list" celebrity who is encouraging violence against him. According to Paul, a tweet Marx shared on Saturday likely influenced whoever left the package at his home.

"As a repeated target of violence, it is reprehensible that Twitter allows C-list celebrities to encourage violence against me and my family," Paul said in the statement to the publication. "Just this weekend Richard Marx called for violence against me and now we receive this powder-filled letter."

However, Marx argues otherwise. The "Right Here Waiting" singer insists his tweet was nothing more than "a wise-crack about Rand Paul's neighbor."

When a critic asked Marx about Paul's accusatory remarks, he fired back with a sarcastic statement of his own. "I'm the only person on Twitter who's ever referenced Rand Paul's neighbor," Marx tweeted, adding, "Must have been me."

According to The Washington Post, the package also included an image of Paul weraring a neck brace and had a message that read, "I'll finish what your neighbor started." The message was in reference to Paul's physical altercation with his neighbor Rene Boucher. In 2017, Paul and Boucher had "an argument over yard waste from the neighboring home." The incident escalated to a physical fight that left Paul with six broken ribs.

The current incident involving the mysterious package is being investigated by Capitol Hill police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

===

===

note extrapolation/intensification:

https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/stop-the-steal/

no lnx twt

Ali Alexander, the lead organizer of the so-called Stop the Steal campaign, has resurfaced after going into hiding following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Streaming on Trovo Wednesday night, Alexander claimed that while he has been licking his wounds, he has been plotting to restart rallies in March, abolish the media, and build a separate society for Trump supporters.

As former President Donald Trump faces an impeachment trial this week for inciting an insurrection with his speech at the Stop the Steal rally the morning of Jan. 6, it appears Alexander has yet to face charges for his role. Alexander rebooted the so-called Stop the Steal campaign the day after Election Day, when Trump's lead began to slip as mail-in ballots began to be counted. He pushed voter fraud conspiracy theories, embraced QAnon conspiracy theorists and far-right activists in his campaign, claimed to be doing God's work, and organized three massive rallies in Washington, D.C., that featured the Proud Boys hate group, paramilitary groups like the Oath Keepers, and other extremists.

Following Jan. 6, Alexander was booted off most major social media platforms and, as a result, is now streaming on Trovo, a gaming platform that appears to be growing in popularity among far-right actors kicked off other platforms. On Wednesday night, Alexander lamented the “racist, bigoted, anti-Christian, anti-Southern, anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-human smear machine" that he says targeted him, and he promised to create chaos. “We've got to get back in the driver's seat," he added.

“They've done a great number on my life, they've cost me tens of thousands of dollars, they've really destroyed parts of my life, but in a lot of ways, I have no other choice but to announce that I'm building the future, so I'm making strategic investments in tools that fight deplatforming and tocreate chaos on existing platforms," Alexander claimed.

“America is going to have a choice, and I promise you that, between going onto this dystopian future or fighting in what I'm calling the American sovereignty movement," he said. “And I'm gonna get back, and I'm going to do rallies again starting in March, I'm gonna have indoor gatherings in March, in Michigan, in Arizona, in Georgia, in Texas. I'm going to do a media tour."

Alexander said he had been plotting how to do away with the free press and other “systems that control us": “So I want you guys to know that I've been licking my wounds, but I've been plotting, I've been planning, I've been scheming because we have to do away with this whole system. The free press is not free, and they're not the press, they need to be abolished. The systems that control us have to be abolished."

“I'm going to create a society, and a community, and a culture, and a language for [Trump supporters], and there are tens of millions of us. … Winning can just be 10 million people creating a new megacity," he mused. “Let's build our own city, let's seriously build our own city, let's build a back-up city in South America."

Alexander also didn't miss the opportunity to push the claim that the insurrection was a “premeditated psyop."

“Like everyone is saying the impeachment trial is proving that there was a premeditated psyop against both Trump and Stop the Steal, so how could we incite an insurrection that was premeditated by people we don't know?" he said. “And yet, are there big platforms welcoming me back saying we treated a Black man wrong because we wanted to pretend he was leading a white supremacy movement? No. These people are evil. And we will make lists of them, and they will not be welcome in this new society, they won't be welcomed on new platforms, those people who have tried toforce Marxism and thought control on us."

Alexander said that if the “deep state" charges him with a fake crime, he'd be prepared to fight: “If they want to charge me with a fake crime, if they want to martyr me, then I will meet them on that battlefield. I'm not somebody, I'm not somebody that talks a talk or tweets a tweet."

“I've licked my wounds, I'm pissed off. I'm more pissed off than I was the night of the election I created Stop the Steal. We win. They lose. To God be the glory," he said in closing.

Ahead of the Capitol insurrection, Alexander embraced increasingly violent rhetoric, calling for revolution and rebellion. A short distance away from the White House the day before the insurrection, Alexander started a “Victory or death!" chant at a Stop the Steal rally. “Our government is only our government if it is legitimate," he declared at that rally. “1776 is always an option."

After the violence at the Capitol, Alexander posted a since-deleted video of himself saying “I don't disavow this. I do not denounce this." He encouraged viewers to tune into his Stop the Steal website, which he called “the home of the rebellion against an illegitimate government."

This article was originally published at Right Wing Watch and is republished here by permission.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Watch: House impeachment managers' damning video links Trump's ... ›

GOP congressman deletes tweet saying he met with 'Stop the Steal ... ›

Right-wing grifters launch Stop the Steal PAC to cash in on election ... ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

'Stop the steal': The deep roots of Trump's 'voter fraud' strategy - BBC ... ›

Transcript of Trump's Speech at Rally Before US Capitol Riot ... ›

Facebook Says It Is Removing All Content Mentioning 'Stop the Steal' ›

===

===

an 121 deplat after insurr; 1.5 twit followers

https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/devin-nunes-2649881137/

===

===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/steve-bannon-youtube/

Steve Bannon, the former White House Chief Strategist for the Trump administration, is the latest Trump affiliate to face social media consequences for the spread of misinformation.

On Friday, Jan. 8, YouTube opted to remove Bannon's "War Room" podcast channel due to noncompliance with the video-sharing website's guidelines.

In a statement to The Wrap, a YouTube spokesperson confirmed that Bannon's channel and an associated channel were both banned The spokesperson also reiterated YouTube's latest policy updates incorporated on Jan. 7 and the course of action that will be taken for those who violate rules regarding the spread of misinformation.

"In accordance with our strikes system, we have terminated Steve Bannon's channel 'War Room' and one associated channel for repeatedly violating our Community Guidelines," a YouTube spokesperson said. "As we said yesterday, any channel posting new videos with misleading content that alleges widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election in violation of our policies will receive a strike, a penalty which temporarily restricts uploading or live-streaming. Channels that receive three strikes in the same 90-day period will be permanently removed from YouTube."

Bannon's ban came just days after YouTube released a statement via Twitter announcing a multitude of changes to its guidelines on the circulation of false information. Following the disturbing civil unrest that erupted at the U.S. Capitol, YouTube addressed the unfortunate series of events as it vowed to effectively take action against the claims of widespread voter fraud....[now display error msg]

===

===

1220

in the past 24 hours, eight of the top ten most popular posts on Facebook were created by far-right extremists—including Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, and Franklin Graham.¹

Every single day, these far-right figures are spreading radical right-wing conspiracy theories to tens of millions of Americans and are poisoning our news feeds with dangerous misinformation that is eroding our democracy.

Which is why Inequality Media—the progressive nonprofit I founded that counters the right wing's lies with clear, factual, and engaging viral videos and other content—has never been more important.

Inequality Media is one of the only progressive groups with a large enough following to match the biggest right-wing propagandists. Just look at our numbers: Our videos and posts are shared seven times more than Sean Hannity's, our Facebook page receives 15 times more engagement per post than Ben Shapiro, and our videos have been viewed more than 440 million times....

===

===

an 1220

Fox & Friends" host **Brian Kilmeade** is furious over YouTube's decision to ban videos that promote the lie that there was widespread election fraud that handed the election to Joe Biden.

"Big tech YouTube is the latest to decide that any conversations or postings about election fraud is not going to be posted on YouTube," Kilmeade ranted.

Kilmeade has the facts wrong.

"More than a month after the U.S. presidential election," the AP reports, "YouTube says it will start removing newly uploaded material that claims widespread voter fraud or errors changed the outcome."

Kilmeade wrongly claimed YouTube was banning "any conversations or postings about election fraud."

"I'm very disappointed," Kilmeade continued, claiming an interview he conducted would be banned. "But in all seriousness, it's unbelievable the way these big tech companies are flat out taking the incoming and being biased because they just want the outcome. The outcome is Joe Biden is president," he admitted. "And this is more of an example of them doing it."

Watch

• Watch: Dr. Anthony Fauci stomps all over Fox & Friends after they ... ›
• Watch: Fox & Friends host gets unexpected lesson on wealth ... ›
• Fox & Friends absurdly defends Trump after he wrongly claimed ... ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

• Trump says weekly calls on 'Fox & Friends' are returning; Fox says ... ›
• We analyzed 17 months of Fox & Friends transcripts. It's far weirder ... ›

===

===

well otoh

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/24/headlines/zoom_facebook_and_youtube_censor_sfsu_seminar_attended_by_palestinian_activist

facebook, YouTube and Zoom are facing accusations of censorship after the platforms blocked the streaming of an online seminar at San Francisco State University featuring Palestinian activist Leila Khaled. Zoom and Facebook blocked organizers from using their platforms in advance, after coming under pressure from groups including the Anti-Defamation League and the Lawfare Project. The start of the seminar was live-streamed on YouTube but then was abruptly stopped after 22 minutes. In other tech news, environmental and Indigenous activists recently had their Facebook accounts temporarily suspended as they planned an online protest against private equity firm KKR, an investor in the Coastal GasLink pipeline in British Columbia.

TOPICS:

• Academic Freedom
• Freedom of the Press
• Media Consolidation
• Social Media
• Israel & Palestine

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/latest-senate-hearing-social-media-bias-was-just-another-example-right-wingers-working

parker m

On Wednesday, the Senate commerce committee held a hearing about content moderation on social media platforms, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai were called as witnesses. The hearing was ostensibly about possible reform to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, but the goal of the Republican senators who called it was clearly to influence how these platforms enforce their policies in the days leading up to and following next week’s elections.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) went so far as to promote the hearing like some type of boxing match between himself (“the free speech champion”) and Dorsey (“the czar of censorship”), and he used his speaking time to berate the CEO for their content moderation policies.

The hearing served as a public forum for conservatives to work the refs, accusing these platforms of having anti-conservative bias in an effort to spur more favorable treatment. Of course, there isn’t actually anti-conservative bias on social media platforms -- quite the opposite, actually.

A new nine-month Media Matters study of Facebook pages posting political content found that right-leaning pages outperformed left-leaning and politically neutral pages in the number of average weekly interactions they accrued. Studies published in August 2019, April 2019, and July 2018 found similar disparities or equal performance. Past studies of Facebook have found that conservative pages dominate liberal and neutral pages on topics including abortion, immigration, and transgender issues, as well. While Zuckerberg may deny that Facebook is a “right-wing echo chamber,” his belief isn’t supported by the facts.

In fact, Zuckerberg has made repeated overtures to the right when conservatives claim to be the victims of bias on the platform. Zuckerberg hired lifelong Republican operatives to head global policy and election policy initiatives, and earlier this year he hired a former *Fox & Friends* senior producer to head video strategy for Facebook News. A February Washington Post report outlined some of the many ways Zuckerberg has tried to appease conservatives, which included the torpedoing of a plan to address fake news websites, the politically motivated inclusion of Breitbart in its news tab program, and meetings with the likes of Corey Lewandowski, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, and a bevy of conservative commentators in 2016.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Zuckerberg talks regularly with White House senior advisor Jared Kushner and has built a relationship with Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, whose content happens to be some of the most shared on the entire platform. That same Wall Street Journal report showed that Facebook’s actions to help conservatives had the effect of reducing traffic to left-leaning outlets like Mother Jones.

Even with all of this evidence showing how Facebook supports them, conservatives still play the role of victims. It will never, ever be good enough for them.

“What we are watching -- the militarization of social media on behalf of Democrats, and the overt suppression of material damaging to Democrats to the cheering of the press -- is one of the single most dangerous political moments I have ever seen,” Shapiro wrote on Twitter, seemingly oblivious to the way social media companies promote his content at the expense of liberal articles.

Evidence of anti-conservative bias is always thin, based on faulty comparisons, or just outright false. During the hearing, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) brought up a recent Media Research Center report that claimed that Trump was “censored” 65 times on social media. This was a particularly weak and easily debunked point, and it goes to show just how much of a reach conservatives are making when they claim to be the victims of bias.

Conservatives have called tech CEOs in front of Congress over and over and over and over, usually under the guise of an anti-trust hearing or a chance to comment on reforming Section 230. But they’re clearly interested only in trying to coerce these companies into giving them an advantage.

related

sinclair national reporters have repeatedly pushed right-wing lies about supposed social media platform bias

10/27/20 4:47 PM EDT

A new study finds that Facebook is not censoring conservatives despite their repeated attacks

10/28/20 10:17 AM EDT

Some pro-gun Facebook pages are fearmongering about mass violence from the left after the election

10/26/20 11:44 AM EDT

mma1120

===

h:{ttps://www.breitbart.com:(style="font-weight:inherit;outline:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{/tag/hunter-biden/}:

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Tuesday ripped into Big Tech, describing them as "superspreaders" of disinformation in the wake of Facebook and Twitter censoring on their platforms the link to the New York Post report alleging Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, had email correspondence uncovered showing him getting help from his father to obtain a ...

===

==

mma 1020

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/right-leaning-pages-dominated-conversation-facebook-during-supreme-court-confirmation

===

this is after co2 bs worked the refs/zuck?!

[https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/08/04/to_climate_change_extremists_free_speech_](https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/08/04/to_climate_change_extremists_free_speech_

on_facebook_is_dangerous_500896.html)

[on_facebook_is_dangerous_500896.html](https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/08/04/to_climate_change_extremists_free_speech_

on_facebook_is_dangerous_500896.html)

to Climate Change Extremists, Free Speech on Facebook Is Dangerous By Brian Maloney August 04, 2020

As America’s political middle ground gives way to sharp left-right divisions and even violence, there are winners and losers in the war on ideas. What in the recent past would have been considered up for debate, now shifts firmly into the “settled science” category by those who are intolerant of differing viewpoints.

In 2020, “winners” consist of those who control social media networks, of which a mere handful now have a stranglehold on the national conversation. Because these firms are primarily located in the ultra-liberal San Francisco Bay Area, their hiring pool has long consisted primarily of left-leaning employees. With the inevitable temptation to use this incredible power to influence public sentiment and elections, leftists have had the inside advantage, leaving conservatives, moderates and others shut out of the debate almost entirely. 

Twitter, for example, is facing a public relations nightmare over recent revelations that 1100 insiders and contractors had access to the disturbingly-named “God Mode,” which allows almost total control over user accounts and content. As there was no internal oversight over such a powerful access level, this led to a major security breach affecting celebrities and political leaders.

No stranger to accusations of unfair control over user speech is Facebook, a platform originally designed to bring people together. It has recently come under fire for suppressing debate over so-called “climate change”. The dispute is over the ability of one group to control another's free expression via the Menlo Park-based company’s Orwellian Oversight Board and moderation team.

Reeling from the 2016 election’s outcome and aftermath, Facebook began site reforms to regulate user content. That opened a Pandora's box of criticism and scrutiny over censorship and the outright de-platforming of voices. A central target of that debate has become the suppression of voices that challenge left-leaning scientists’ prevailing opinions.

When it comes to climate change, Facebook has cared little for honest discussion and debate, instead tipping the scales in favor of alarmists. It has already banned site users from seeing and sharing factual content created by credentialed climate scientists.

Even worse, in a recent open letter to former Denmark Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who now co-chairs the company’s Oversight Board, leftist zealots want Facebook to go a step further. They claim that “the integrity of the Oversight Board” is at risk unless they begin this troubled process again for opinion piecesthat challenge the “progressive” climate change orthodoxy.

“When you were Prime Minister, you knew for certain that climate change was fact, not opinion, and needs to be treated as such,” wrote its signers, which included the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the Center for American Progress. “In your current role as an overseer of Facebook’s dangerous misinformation practice, our plea is grave: please, Ms. Thorning-Schmidt, take action now.”

Meanwhile, many of these same groups have endorsed legislators like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who proclaims that “the world is going to end in 12 years, if we don’t address climate change.” Despite sophomoric and outlandish assertions, they seemingly want to force a new Facebook policy that will prevent the public from ever countering radical viewpoints.

To say that energy science is settled law is not only untrue, it’s downright dangerous. On June 29th, for example, Biomass supplier Enviva revealed that a sizable portion of their product wasn't carbon neutral as previously believed. This finding runs counter to the European Union’s longstanding belief that biomass is the prime option for reducing carbon emissions. Now, regulators must reassess their polices for a source that accounts for over 60 percent of their clean energy needs. But we would have never learned that if public scepticism were banned.

Without the protection of free thought and discussion, scientific work cannot proceed. We need to share ideas, opinions, and perspectives to allow for the uncovering of truth, not suppress it.

Perhaps the Sierra Club doesn’t want a debate because other groups within their school of thought could challenge them. Take, for example, the process of making EVs, which some have found can actually be highly destructive to the environment. Sierra Club has preached EVs for years and finds dissenting arguments "dangerous." When the debate is shut down, the public fails to hear about the horrendous misuse of child labor at cobalt mines in the Congo and other disturbing details.

As Mark Zuckerberg put it, “Powerful people are always going to have a voice. I feel like someone needs to stand up for giving everyone a voice.” Facebook’s platform is unique in its ability to allow for the sharing of ideas worldwide. By attempting to stifle our ability to speak freely, the signers of this letter are working to shut it down.

Zuckerberg and Facebook have been right to reject calls for suppression to date. As science and society will be better as a result, they should hold firm under pressure from these narrowminded special interest groups.

Brian Maloney is the co-founder of the Media Equality Project.

===

ref to pat michaels WE

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/facebook-has-another-go-at-climate-truth-arbitration

no lnx

Facebook has another go at climate truth arbitration

by Patrick Michaels  | June 29, 2020 

Last year, Facebook briefly slapped a “false” label on an op-ed I wrote with statistician Caleb Rossiter on the poor performance of the computer models that predict future global temperatures. That label blocks Facebook users from seeing and sharing an article. We explained in detail in a letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg that the label was “unsupported by the data and analysis of UN and U.S. government agencies.”

I am a climate scientist. I know the U.N. data because I was an author and reviewer of many of the U.N. climate reports, even as I grew increasingly unsatisfied by their gradual evolution from real science into advocacy science.

To its credit, Facebook removed the “false” label and indeed adopted a new policy of not “fact-checking” op-eds. But Facebook has slapped another “false” label on a YouTube video of my Oct. 21, 2018, interview on Life, Liberty & Levin. They probably would have let it pass except for the fact that nearly 3 million people have watched it.

The arbiter of climate truth is a group contracted to Facebook called Climate Feedback, itself funded by professional climate alarmist Eric Michelman. It gets exercised about anything deviating from its apocalyptic religious view of climate change. It was particularly upset by Michael Moore’s recent film on the true environmental and financial costs of wind and solar projects, which turn out to be anything but “renewable.” In fact, as Moore showed in his folksy "Believe me; I’m an amateur" style, these boondoggles require massive fossil fuel energy inputs to build the infrastructure that provides their intermittent and costly power and so don’t even reduce net carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate Feedback accused me of stating erroneously that “about half” of the warming of nearly a degree in Celsius since 1900 is caused by carbon dioxide. But this is a fact, not an opinion. There are two warming spells that occurred in the 20th century. The first one started in 1910, long before we had put enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to create much of a warming effect. And interestingly, the rate of warming in the early 20th century is indistinguishable from the rate of the second warming, beginning in 1976.

In rebutting my assertion, Climate Feedback relies on a computer climate model simulation from the United Nation’s collection. The U.N. uses 105 model runs, and 104 of them are incapable of simulating the three-dimensional behavior of the entire global tropics. The one model that does work predicts hardly any global warming, but call the special prosecutor; it’s a Russian model.

Climate Feedback was also upset that I said warming may have stopped from the late 1990s to the beginning of the big El Nino warming of 2014-16. In my extended piece on Climate Feedback’s shenanigans, I included a graph of global monthly surface temperatures from the most pristine scientific record we had at the time of the Levin taping. This clearly shows the “pause,” which was discussed a great deal at the time it happened.

Is Facebook aware that all of those vaunted climate models are “parameterized” (i.e., fudged) to get the answer the modelers want? I’m exaggerating about this, right? Well, here’s what climate modeler Thorsten Mauritsen wrote in the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems a mere two months ago:

We have documented how we tuned the MPI-ESM1.2 [Max-Planck Institute Earth System Model 1.2] global climate model to match the instrumental record warming; an endeavor which has clearly been successful. Due to the historical order of events, the choice was to do this practically by targeting an ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity—the amount of warming resulting from a doubling of carbon dioxide] about 3 [degrees celsius] using cloud feedbacks, as opposed to tuning the aerosol forcing.

What this means is that his climate model (like everyone else’s) was unable to simulate the climate of the 20th century from first physical principles. So, he forced the issue by mucking around with the cloud parameters even though that was likely to induce massive errors in the tropics. After all, the only truly unpardonable sin would have been to come back with a model that stood out too much from everyone else's.

Unfortunately, Facebook is back to censoring informed, defensible scientific opinion with less defensible scientific opinions.[does he mean his youtube vid]  It was a great platform when it upheld the free exchange of ideas.   Michaels is a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He is the author of Lukewarming (2016) and Scientocracy (2019) and a senior fellow with the CO2 Coalition in Arlington, Virginia.

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/report-facebook-employees-have-evidence-showing-pattern-preferential-treatment-right-wing

A new BuzzFeed report reveals that Facebook employees have evidence that shows the platform gives preferential treatment to right-wing Facebook pages, which is at stark odds with conservatives’ frequent and unsubstantiated claims that social media platforms are censoring right-wing accounts.

An August 6 article from Craig Silverman and Ryan Mac reports that there are growing internal concerns about how Facebook handles misinformation, particularly misinformation related to voting and the upcoming 2020 presidential election.

In internal message boards, employees questioned “the apparent special treatment of right-wing pages” including the far-right outlet Breitbart, which Facebook considers a “trusted new source.” Reportedly, employees have evidence that shows “a pattern of preferential treatment for right-wing publishers and pages,” including interference in Facebook’s fact-checking process from company leaders such as FacebookVice President for Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan. Kaplan, a former deputy White House chief of staff for the George W. Bush administration, reportedly pushed for Facebook to partner with right-wing groups and was involved in nixing proposed solutions to stop political polarization on the platform.

This reporting comes as right-wing politicians and figures continue to baselessly accuse Facebook and other social media platforms of censorship and anti-conservative bias. During the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee hearing last month, conservative lawmakers repeatedly alleged that Facebook is biased against right-leaning content. Additionally, Fox News attacked Facebook and accused the platform of censorship after Facebook enforced its policy against COVID-19 misinformation.

Media Matters has repeatedly found that claims of anti-conservative bias on social media platforms are false. In multiple studies over the course of several years, Media Matters has shown that right-leaning and left-leaning content thrives on Facebook, with right-leaning Facebook pages earning more interactions -- reactions, comments, shares -- on posts about voting and posts about protests against police brutality than do posts from left-leaning or ideologically nonaligned pages. In recent weeks, this trend has continued to hold.

BuzzFeed’s latest report about Facebook employees claiming there is a pattern of preferential treatment toward right-leaning Facebook pages and figures further underscores how Facebook has caved to pressure from conservatives, despite evidence repeatedly debunking conservatives’ baseless accusations. From BuzzFeed’s August 6 article:

With heightened internal tensions and morale at a low point, concerns about how the company handles fact-checked content have exploded in an internal Workplace group dedicated to misinformation policy.

Last Friday, at another all-hands meeting, employees asked Zuckerberg how right-wing publication Breitbart News could remain a Facebook News partner after sharing a video that promoted unproven treatments and said masks were unnecessary to combat the novel coronavirus. The video racked up 14 million views in six hours before it was removed from Breitbart’s page, though other accounts continued to share it.

Zuckerberg danced around the question, but did note that Breitbart could be removed from the company's news tab if it were to receive two strikes for publishing misinformation within 90 days of each other. (Facebook News partners, which include dozens of publications such as BuzzFeed News and the Washington Post, receive compensation and placement in a special news tab on the social network.)

“This was certainly one strike against them for misinformation, but they don't have others in the last 90 days,” Zuckerberg said. “So by the policies that we have, which by the way I think are generally pretty reasonable on this, it doesn't make sense to remove them.”

But some of Facebook’s own employees gathered evidence they say shows Breitbart — along with other right-wing outlets and figures including Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, Trump supporters Diamond and Silk, and conservative video production nonprofit Prager University — has received special treatment that helped it avoid running afoul of company policy. They see it as part of a pattern of preferential treatment for right-wing publishers and pages, many of which have alleged that the social network is biased against conservatives.

==

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/gop-rep-matt-gaetz-files-a-criminal-referral-against-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-with-william-barr

no lnx

gOP Rep. Matt Gaetz files a criminal referral against Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg with William Barr

Written by Roger Sollenberger / Salon July 29, 2020

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Monday asked Attorney General William Barr to open a criminal investigation into Mark Zuckerberg over allegations that the Facebook CEOlied to Congress. MIRROR FLYNN STONE?

In a letter to Barr, Gaetz accused the social media executive of making false statements to Congress on two occasions in 2018. He alleged that Zuckerberg “repeatedly and categorically denied any bias against conservative speech, persons, policies or politics” on his platform.

“On both occasions, members of Congress asked Mr. Zuckerberg about allegations that Facebook censored and suppressed content supportive of President Donald Trump and other conservatives,” Gaetz wrote.

“Mr. Zuckerberg also dismissed the suggestion that Facebook exercises any form of editorial manipulation,” he added.

:{:{}:

}:

Zuckerberg made the remarks in 2018 under questioning from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who accused Facebook of “bias and censorship.” Cruz cited a 2016 Gizmodo revealing allegations that the social media platform had knowingly suppressing conservative news. Zuckerberg responded:

I understand where that concern is coming from, because Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place. And this is actually a concern that I have, and that I try to root out in the company, is making sure that we don’t have any bias in the work that we do. And I think it is a fair concern that people would at least wonder about."

As evidence to support his claims, Gaetz directed Barr to a recent sting by Project Veritas, a right-wing organization known for its efforts to take down liberal organizations, mainstream media outlets and public figures through misinformation and deceptively edited “insider” videos.

Project Veritas published hidden-camera footage of purported Facebook content moderators apparently admitting that they delete conservative posts.  Gaetz says the “whistleblowers” in the video offer “ample evidence” of the company’s “bias and manipulation.”

“According to the Veritas report and undercover footage, the adjudicators were outspoken about their political bias against Republicans and actively chose to eliminate otherwise-allowable content from the platform and from public view simply due to its political orientation,” Gaetz wrote.

“At the same time,” Gaetz added, “speech promoting violence against the president and his supporters was labeled as merely ‘political,’ and was thus allowed to stay on the platform.”

The Republican representative also claims, without citing evidence, that Facebook’s artificial intelligence content screening program is itself not politically neutral, which he alleges is a violation of the “good faith” provision of the Communications Decency Act.

Republicans — from internet trolls, up to lawmakers and President Donald Trump himself — regularly accuse Facebook and other social media platforms of anti-conservative bias.

However, Facebook launched its own project in the weeks after the 2016 election — “Project P,” for propaganda — which found dozens of pages peddling fake news ahead of Trump’s victory. Nearly all the pages were based overseas, had financial motives and “displayed a clear rightward bent,” according to the Washington Post.

Another reason why moderators may encounter a higher volume of flagged conservative content is because Facebook’s most popular content has become overwhelmingly conservative over time. “Facebook has become the home of right-wing America, while Twitter and Snap have become the home of the left,” Vanity Fair’s Nick Bilton reported earlier this year.

And while liberals have criticized Facebook for refusing to fact-check political ads — and even threatened to break up the social media platform — a number of leading conservatives have reportedly met in secret with Zuckerberg, including Tucker Carlson, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and on at least one occasion, Trump himself. Zuckerberg has not disclosed the content of those meetings.

Matt Gaetz did not respond to Salon’s request for comment. Facebook declined to comment.

==

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/black-lives-matter/facebook-has-repeatedly-caved-bogus-right-wing-pressure

Facebook has repeatedly caved to bogus right-wing pressure

As Facebook refuses to institute real change in response to the Stop Hate For Profit campaign, it's worth looking back at just how much it catered to the right over the years

WRITTEN BY JOHN WHITEHOUSE

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PARKER MOLLOY

PUBLISHED 07/07/2

Facebook executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg met with leaders of the Stop Hate For Profit campaign today. Following the meeting, members of the campaign were clear that Facebook offered “the same old talking points” and intended to take “no real action” in response to the massive campaign in which dozens of companies have pulled advertising from the platform due to Facebook profiting from the spread of demonstrable lies, hate, and racism on its platforms.

Civil rights groups have been clear about what they want from Facebook: an end to hate speech and harassment of Black users on the platform. Even after years of complaints, Facebook’s recent actions have been half-measures at most. When Facebook announced it would apply its anti-hate speech policy to ads, the NAACP blasted the company in a statement, saying that the promises will not “make a dent in the problem.” The statement concluded by noting that Facebook has “made apologies in the past. They have taken meager steps after each catastrophe where their platform played a part. But this has to end now.”

This inaction comes after years of Facebook giving tangible, meaningful concessions to bogus right-wing pressure campaigns. Here are some examples.

Facebook's history

• ### Trending Topics

This is the origin story of Trumpism at Facebook. When Gizmodo published a flimsy report in May 2016 claiming that Facebook employees had “blacklisted” right-wing outlets and stories from the platform’s Trending Topics news section, the tech company sprung into action, quickly arranging a meeting with conservatives and a representative from Donald Trump’s campaign.

The meeting was reportedly set up by Facebook executives and former Republican operatives Joel Kaplan and Katie Harbath.

Even though an investigation revealed “no evidence of systematic political bias” in the decisions, the company fired the editors of the section anyway and replaced them with an algorithm that repeatedly surfaced fake and conspiratorial news up until the point that Facebook just got rid of it entirely in June 2018. Nowadays, we only know what’s trending on the platform thanks to apps like CrowdTangle -- which Facebook bought and now limits access to. And the answer to what is trending, more often than not, is right-wing sources.

• ### Featuring partisan right-wing fact-checkers

2016 saw an explosion of blatant hoaxes and fabrications on Facebook. After a pressure campaign, Zuckerberg said that he would allow fact-checkers on the platform in a limited capacity. Right-wing media immediately and repeatedly protested. In response to the complaints, Zuckerberg allowed multiple right-wing media organizations to serve as fact-checkers on the site: The Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard.

While the Standard would later be shut down by its owner for being insufficiently pro-Trump, The Daily Caller’s Check Your Fact division continues to serve as a fact-checker on the platform to this day, and it serves a political purpose: When Trump went on a rant in March at a campaign rally downplaying the seriousness of the coronavirus outbreak and potential for it to take on pandemic status as a “hoax” by Democrats, Check Your Fact used its status to get posts about his comments from Politico and NBC News marked as “false information.” No nonpartisan fact-checker, as far as I am aware, had a similar finding.

Meanwhile, Facebook has shown that it will disregard fact checks when right-wing media complain about them. Recent reporting reveals that Facebook gave a special exemption from fact checks for climate crisis denial, and Facebook completely caved in late 2019 regarding a right-wing propaganda video about abortion, explicitly overruling medical professionals who fact-checked it.

Zuckerberg is complicit in all of this. He misled Congress when asked about the fact-checking program in 2019. When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asked Zuckerberg why The Daily Caller is included in the Facebook fact-checking project given the publication is “well-documented with ties to white supremacists,” Zuckerberg demurred, saying that Facebook doesn’t appoint the fact-checkers. That’s just false: Facebook requires independent certification by the International Fact Checking Network, but the company itself appoints the fact-checkers, not the IFCN; to wit, there were at the time 62 companies with that certification, but Facebook had only allowed six to serve as fact-checkers in the U.S.

• ### Including Breitbart as a trusted news source

In October 2019, Facebook included the far-right website Breitbart as part of a new initiative to curate news on the platform, despite supposed standards concerning misinformation and community guidelines against hate speech.

To list all of Breitbart’s racism and ties to white supremacy would take all day. In addition to its white nationalism and hate speech, the site also failed in 2017 to prove that it was editorially independent from key Trump supporters.

In 2018, Facebook’s Kaplan personally made an effort to “protect” Breitbart's account from being downsized in the news feed, and Zuckerberg himself agreed.

In announcing the News Tab in 2019, Zuckerberg personally defended including Breitbart, saying that Facebook “needs to have a diversity of, basically, views in there. ... You want to have content that represents different perspectives but is doing so in a way that complies with the standards that we have for this.”

• ### Giving up on fighting misinformation and instead boosting right-wing sources

Just days ago, The Washington Post reported that in response to right-wing complaints, Facebook abandoned efforts to combat misinformation and instead focused on boosting right-wing sources in its news feed algorithm, specifically to “neutralize claims that it was biased against conservative publishers.” Former Facebook spokesperson Nu Wexler told the Post that Trump’s baseless claim of anti-conservative bias “succeeded in getting [platforms] to revise their rules for him.”

Earlier in 2020, the Post reported that Kaplan personally defended keeping up a network of fake news sites, saying, “We can’t remove all of it because it will disproportionately affect conservatives,” and that prominent right-wing figures did not believe that the content they pushed was fake news. A former Facebook employee told the Post that Facebook does not know any other way to engage with Republicans other than to just give in, saying, “Facebook does not speak Republican. … This is what they know about Republicans: Tell them ‘yes’ or they will hurt us.”

In May 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook just gave up on efforts to make the platform less polarizing. The Journal reported that a Facebook researcher found in a 2016 case study that extremist content was thriving in private groups on the platform, and that the company’s own algorithms were responsible for “64% of all extremist group joins.” Facebook shelved the research and did nothing about it.

A further finding in that Journal report was that there was more far-right content on Facebook than far-left content; the impact of this phenomenon was that efforts like reducing clickbait affected the right more than the left. (You still see that today in things like James O’Keefe’s recent Facebook exposes, which only proves -- if it’s all true, which knowing O’Keefe is a colossal assumption unlikely to pan out -- that Facebook’s rules impact the right more than the left.)

A third part of the Journal report noted that Facebook’s algorithm favors hyperpartisan “super-sharers.” When a team proposed a change to favor content from more typical Facebook users, Kaplan once again intervened to argue against the proposal. Zuckerberg himself made the final call to implement the proposal but to “cut the weighting by 80%,” per the Journal. The report adds that “Zuckerberg also signaled he was losing interest in the effort to recalibrate the platform in the name of social good, they said, asking that they not bring him something like that again.”

• ### Secret meetings with the right

In late 2019, Zuckerberg met President Trump for dinner. We only learned of it much later, and due to the secrecy of both Trump’s White House and Facebook, there’s no record of what they discussed, aside from Trump’s occasional rant that he’s “No. 1 on Facebook.” Zuckerberg still refuses to disclose what the two talked about.

Additionally, following the Trending Topics meeting in 2016, Zuckerberg has continued to have private meetings with right-wing media figures, including hosting Ben Shapiro in his own home. Facebook even took advice from a far-right figure who blamed gay marriage for hurricanes. There’s simply no track record like that on the left. Facebook also reportedly had a meeting in 2016 with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski that only came to light this year.

• ### Making advertising decisions out of fear of angering Republicans

Facebook reportedly may be making advertising decisions out of fear of angering Republicans. The company has continued to allow narrow targeting of political advertising to individuals by “their home address, gender, education level, income, marital status, job or other characteristics,” even as Democrats warned that such targeting undermined transparency and eased the spread of disinformation. Google has limited targeting, and Twitter has banned political ads. The Washington Post’s report quotes former Facebook executive Alex Stamos: “I think Facebook is looking at their political advertising policies in explicitly partisan terms, and they’re afraid of angering Republicans.”

In 2019, Joe Biden’s campaign sent a request to Facebook asking the company to remove a Trump campaign advertisement that falsely suggested the former vice president had offered Ukraine $1 billion in aid to fire a prosecutor investigating a company tied to his son. Facebook refused to take the ad down. Katie Harbath, the Facebook executive who made the decision, previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee as well as current Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

In 2020, Facebook let the Trump campaign run ads with demonstrably false claims about voter fraud. The platform also reportedly let a pro-Trump super PAC lie repeatedly in ads, even though its own fact-checkers had previously debunked the claim.

• ### Staying silent on Russian activity in 2016

According to The Washington Post, Facebook knew about Russian ads and interference in the 2016 election, and its 2017 white paper on the topic avoided mentioning Russia -- allegedly in part to avoid angering the Trump administration.

• ### Different reactions to calls for regulation

Zuckerberg has been very clear in taking a harsh stance toward calls from progressives like Elizabeth Warren to regulate Facebook, even railing against the Democratic senator in leaked audio.

By contrast, he has been much more conciliatory toward Trump even as the Justice Department began an antitrust review of tech companies, including Facebook.

• ### Special treatment for Ben Shapiro

Judd Legum has been on top of this story from the beginning. He’s reported at length about secret networks amplifying content from Shapiro’s The Daily Wire. As Legum notes, Facebook has done nothing when this is reported, even as it “has taken down smaller and less coordinated networks that promoted liberal content.”

When Legum uncovered a financial relationship between Mad World News and The Daily Wire, Facebook punished only Mad World News. Meanwhile, there is “evidence that The Daily Wire is engaged in similar deals with other large Facebook pages.”

• ### Right-wing ties

We’ve noted above that Zuckerberg has hired former Republican operatives Katie Harbath and Joel Kaplan to senior positions. In addition, earlier this year Facebook hired a former longtime Fox & Friends producer to head up video strategy for Facebook News.

Facebook executive Nick Clegg also famously was part of Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government in the United Kingdom while he was a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Facebook board member Peter Thiel also has a long history of right-wing activism.

• ### No actual evidence of conservative censorship

In 2019, after urging by right-wing media, Facebook issued a report regarding cries of anti-conservative bias on the platform. Notably, the report includes no actual data supporting those claims. Nor does the Wall Street Journal op-ed about the investigation penned by former Republican senator and Facebook apparatchik Jon Kyl.

To the contrary, Media Matters has found in extensive studies that right-wing content outperforms other content on Facebook.[3 grafs]

==

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/right-wing-playbook-against-supposed-liberal-media-bias-being-used-tech-giants-alarming

parker molloy

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported how President Donald Trump and Republicans have used baseless charges of anti-conservative bias to create an increasingly conservative-friendly environment at Facebook. Nothing about the Post’s reporting is particularly surprising as Facebook’s many instances of right-wing favoritism and willingness to cave to conservative demands have been public knowledge for some time.

Since 2015, the social media behemoth has wrestled with how to placate Trump. Responding to Republicans’ charges of bias against them on the platform, Facebook has largely abandoned or scaled back a number of its high-profile initiatives aimed at addressing the spread of false information and online harassment. According to the Post, this meant tweaking its news feed algorithm to “neutralize claims that it was biased against conservative publishers.”

The concessions to Trump have led to a transformation of the world’s information battlefield. They paved the way for a growing list of digitally savvy politicians to repeatedly push out misinformation and incendiary political language to billions of people. It has complicated the public understanding of major events such as the pandemic and the protest movement, as well as contributed to polarization.

And as Trump grew in power, the fear of his wrath pushed Facebook into more deferential behavior toward its growing number of right-leaning users, tilting the balance of news people see on the network, according to the current and former employees.

Former Facebook spokesperson Nu Wexler told the Post that Trump’s baseless claim of anti-conservative bias “succeeded in getting [Facebook] to revise their rules for him.”

For years, right-wing media have amplified the narrative that tech companies have an anti-conservative bias, a clear example of working the refs, and that strategy has gotten precisely the outcomes they hoped for.

Though claims of anti-conservative bias in tech companies is a relatively recent development, the playbook for this strategy was written decades ago.

What does Republican former Vice President Spiro Agnew have to do with conservatives’ current arguments against bias in tech companies? More than you probably think.

In November 1969, Agnew attended the Midwestern Regional Republican Conference in Des Moines, Iowa, and delivered the speech that would spark decades of conservative media activism. The “Des Moines speech,” as it became known, marked one of the most brazen attacks on the legitimacy of mainstream media from the right.

Agnew railed against the power of media and the “little group of men” who make editorial decisions. At the time, according to his speech, an estimated 40 million Americans watched network television news every night. Those who selected what news would be covered and whose voices it would lift had immense, concentrated power to shape public opinion. Agnew’s argument was that this “tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one” did not “represent the views of America.” In other words, he argued, they were a bunch of liberals.

Now I want to make myself perfectly clear: I'm not asking for Government censorship or any other kind of censorship. I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans -- when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases.

Thus began the full-throated right-wing attack on the liberal media, an unending exercise in playing the refs and complaining about bias, real or imagined. Even as overtly conservative media outlets like Fox News, formed in part to protect Republicans, edged their way into what many would consider part of the political mainstream, the narrative of a “liberal media” continues to exist today. In recent years, as more people began to get their news from tech companies -- social media platforms, video streaming services, and search engines -- the right-wing playbook against mainstream media has been repurposed for the digital era, and successfully so.

The right-wing war against tech companies doesn’t end with the elimination of bias, but the expansion of it in the conservatives’ favor. Here’s what they’re doing and what they’ve gotten so far.

Former Fox News contributors Diamond and Silk are a case study in how congressional and media power can fuel a false narrative about social media.

In April 2018, Trump supporters Diamond and Silk testified before Congress that Facebook had deemed them “unsafe to the community” and supposedly blocked their page. The truth was that their page had not been blocked or suspended, but that a handful of the duo’s videos didn’t qualify for monetization under a 2017 update to Facebook’s policies, and the “unsafe to the community” message was a mistake the company admitted to. Diamond and Silk’s page continued to gain new fans and their videos continued to rack up views, but they continued to falsely claim that they had been censored. Even right-wing blogger and tech platform critic Erick Erickson conceded that Diamond and Silk were misrepresenting themselves.

Earlier that month, during what was supposed to be a hearing on Facebook’s handling of user data,Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spent his allotted time demanding that CEO Mark Zuckerberg answer for a variety of right-wing grievances, including the supposed censorship of Diamond and Silk and a six-year-old story about the page for an event called “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” being temporarily taken down. Cruz hammered home his point by saying, “To a great many Americans that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias.”

Cruz’s approach mirrors that of other conservatives: Find examples of people on the right who’ve had content removed or their accounts suspended and hold them up as proof that tech companies are singling out conservative views. At the same time, ignore the many examples of social media platforms taking actions against accounts of liberals and progressives. In addition to Cruz, three other Republican lawmakers asked Zuckerberg questions about Diamond and Silk and their baseless claims of social media censorship.

Writing at ThinkProgress, Judd Legum debunked Diamond and Silk’s claims of censorship. Using media analytics tools from Facebook’s CrowdTangle, Legum illustrated that the conservative duo’s content hadn’t been limited at all and was actually receiving more interactions on Facebook than ever before.

In January 2018, Facebook tweaked its algorithm to prioritize content from family and friends over brands, causing many large Facebook pages to see a major decline in interactions. Legum looked at data from March 2017 through March 2018, comparing left-leaning pages like The Rachel Maddow Show, Mic, and The Young Turks to Diamond and Silk. The Rachel Maddow Show saw its total Facebook interactions decline by 51.5%; Mic’s dropped by 94.7%; The Young Turks experienced a 66.9% decline. Diamond and Silk’s content, on the other hand, got a 2.6% increase in interactions.

Media Matters has also conducted several studies clearly demonstrating that right-wing pages are not being being censored on the platform.

One might wonder why the narrative of the unjustly censored conservative endures despite no actual evidence to support it. There are two elements at play here.

First, there’s the willingness of conservatives in government to use their power to compel tech companies to appear before congressional hearings or to hold the threat of regulation over tech CEOs’ heads, as Republicans in the House and Senate have repeatedly done throughout the past several years. This has served as a way for Republicans to not only signal to the public that conservative claims of bias must have some merit, but also to act as a show of force against the tech companies themselves by showing off just how uncomfortable the dissatisfied Republicans can make tech executives feel.

The second element is the role media plays in lending credibility to those stories.

In September 2018, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and then-CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet Larry Page were called to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. There, GOP representatives lobbed unsupported accusations of anti-conservative bias at the three witnesses. Mainstream media outlets then reported on the hearing in neutral terms that avoided bringing attention to just how baseless its premise was, churning out headlines like The New York Times’ “Republicans Accuse Twitter of Bias Against Conservatives” and “Twitter’s Dorsey Avoids Taking Sides in Partisan House Hearing” articles. Meanwhile, conservative media outlets raged against the companies for their supposed bias before, during, and after hearings.

Hearings like these do not provide answers, nor are they designed to. They exist as a way to build on the appearance of a liberally biased tech world. For example, Fox News continued pointing to Diamond and Silk as evidence of anti-conservative bias long after the claim had been debunked.

Tech ignorance, real or feigned, provides right-wing media fodder.

...

no lnx pix twt

Tech ignorance, real or feigned, provides right-wing media fodder.

On May 31, 2018, then-House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) tweeted out a screenshot of one of Google’s “knowledge panels” -- a section on the top right of the search page that summarizes basic information about search queries-- for what was presumably a search for the California Republican Party. McCarthy pointed to the “ideology” label, which contained the label “Nazism” in addition to “conservatism,” “market liberalism,” “fiscal conservatism,” and “green conservatism.” McCarthy believed this was proof that Google was biased against Republicans, seeming to suggest that the company had played a role in either inserting the word in the panel or that it had purposely left it there.

Google quickly replied to McCarthy’s accusation on Twitter, explaining that someone had apparently edited the California Republican Party’s Wikipedia entry to list “Nazism” among its ideologies and that Wikipedia change had briefly shown up in its automatically populated panel. The replies to Google’s explanation were predictably deranged, with people alleging that these sorts of “mistakes” never happen to Democrats, and even going so far as to claim that Google had manually entered that as a way to influence California primary elections.

Google’s explanation was true. As NBC’s Ben Collins noted on Twitter at the time, an anonymous user edited the party’s Wikipedia page on May 24. By May 30, someone else had caught the error and reverted the change. By the time McCarthy had tweeted about it a day later, the fix had already been made, but it just hadn’t updated on Google’s end yet. Wired also published a story explaining how this happened and why it wasn’t an example of bias.

Undeterred by reality, McCarthy has continued pointing to the error as proof of Google’s supposed anti-conservative bias. During a February 2020 panel at Conservative Political Action Conference, McCarthy claimed that Google colluded with Wikipedia to harm the party before a primary. He must know this is absolutely false, but he continues to make these allegations anyway.

Many claims of tech bias against conservatives are just tech ignorance. In March 2019, The Washington Free Beacon raged that Google’s autocomplete feature did not bring up the word “indictment” when searching for Trump’s name. The site suggested that this was proof of bias as Google should have promoted searches about the news that there were no new indictments in the Mueller probe. Almost certainly, if the reverse had happened and Google suggested “indictment” after someone typed in the word “Trump,” conservative media outlets would have taken issue with that as some sort of attempt to link Trump to indictments. Google Public Search Liaison Danny Sullivan explained that’s exactly why the word “indictment” didn’t automatically populate.

Twitter was accused of bias by a number of conservatives when the Twitter account of the anti-abortion movie Unplanned lost followers temporarily. There was a reasonable and not-at-all nefarious explanation for this, but it quickly became part of the anti-conservative bias narrative.

Conservatives have also pointed to basic functions of social media platforms such as limits on the number of actions a user can take in a short period of time as proof of bias against conservatives. Twitter, for instance, limits the number of tweets a user can send, retweet, or like over a given period of time. This is one way tech companies identify and prevent inauthentic activity. These actions have been highlighted as evidence of anti-conservative censorship even though they are applied broadly across social media regardless of a user’s political beliefs.

There are plenty of additional examples of conservative media and politicians pointing to glitches or platform rules as evidence that they are being discriminated against -- and highlighting their unfamiliarity with how the internet works in the process. It doesn’t necessarily matter whether or not these are genuine examples of tech ignorance or if they’re merely for show. What matters is that these claims help sell the narrative of tech bias against conservatives.

This campaign has been remarkably successful so far, especially with Facebook.

On May 9, 2016, Gizmodo published an article titled “Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News.” Based on the comments of two Facebook contractors, Gizmodo’s piece laid out that Facebook employees were making editorial judgments about trending stories and included the allegation that conservative stories -- including news about “American Sniper” Chris Kyle, right-wing YouTuber Steven Crowder, and a right-wing conspiracy theory involving the IRS targeting conservative groups -- were being excluded from Facebook’s trending section. Additionally, one of Gizmodo’s sources griped that legitimate news outlets like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN were favored over hyper-partisan outlets like Breitbart, Red State, or Newsmax.

Then-Gawker Media Executive Editor John Cook would later admit in 2018 that the headline was “engineered for direct injection into the veins of the right-wing grievance-mongers,” that he knew “that millions would see it and come to believe its most aggressive interpretation without comprehending the actual reporting,” and that Gizmodo ran the headline anyway because the site needed the traffic.

But the damage was done. Within hours after the Gizmodo story was published, the Republican National Committee was running with it, demanding that Facebook “answer for its conservative censorship” in a blog post that correctly noted that “Facebook has the power to greatly influence the presidential election.” The proverbial horse had left the barn. Zuckerberg soon convened a meeting with conservatives such as Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Dana Perino, former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Trump 2016 campaign adviser Barry Bennett, in hopes of addressing their concerns. The chain of events set off in part by that Gizmodo post unleashed havoc on the world. That moment marked the realization that conservatives could bend Zuckerberg and Facebook to their will -- and they weren’t about to let up.

Facebook Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan has reportedly come to conservatives’ rescue time and again. Kaplan, The New York Times reported in a 2016 article, was hired in 2011 to “counterbalance Facebook’s left-leaning perception.” Kaplan was responsible for organizing a meeting with conservative commentators following Gizmodo’s article about Facebook’s trending feature. Following the 2016 election, the longtime Republican operative fought Facebook’s efforts to remove pages that shared false information, lobbied for the company to tweak algorithms to favor right-leaning pages, and was behind the push to partner with The Daily Caller on fact-checking and was one of Breitbart’s champions within the company.

This weekend’s Washington Post report shows how Facebook can serve as a cautionary tale for other tech companies that hope to exist as anything more than an extension of the conservative media apparatus. The more power Trump accumulated, “the fear of his wrath pushed Facebook into more deferential behavior toward its growing number of right-leaning users, tilting the balance of news people see on the network.” But that fear -- whether of a tweet, a congressional hearing, or an angry round of Fox News segments and right-wing blog posts -- is an unsustainable long-term approach for tech companies.

Conservatives like Agnew were right to note the power of TV news more than 50 years ago, and they’re right to recognize the power of tech platforms in the present. Pat Buchanan, the man who authored Agnew’s Des Moines speech, has himself enjoyed a lengthy career in media, having worked at CNN and MSNBC. The goal was never to rid the media of bias, but to control the direction and intensity of the bias for their own ends. With decades of hindsight, this strategy should be obvious to even the most casual news consumer.

What’s happening right now is the application of Agnew and Buchanan’s war against the press to more modern mediums, and yet no tech company has had the bravery or integrity necessary to take a bold public stand against this attempt to work the refs. Instead, these companies either allow their platforms to become far-right cesspools as Facebook has done, or they provide the bare minimum pushback to blatant attempts to manipulate their platforms, as Twitter and Google have done. The leaders of tech companies have an immense amount of power, but unless they loudly push back on baseless right-wing claims of bias and attempts to rig algorithms in their favor, they risk becoming nothing more than a cog in the right-wing propaganda machine.

==

aha: has bs myth rhet allowed trump to do dick-tatorial XO? or just raise transaction cost

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/how-a-notoriously-stupid-fox-news-host-inadvertently-let-slip-trumps-corrupt-plan-media-reporter/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4673

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/how-a-notoriously-stupid-fox-news-host-inadvertently-let-slip-trumps-corrupt-plan-media-reporter

twt vid]

although President Donald Trump has used Twitter incessantly to promote himself, he has been furious with the social media outlet this week for fact-checking two of his tweets — so furious that on Thursday, he issued an executive order targeting social media companies and claimed that he did so to “defend free speech.” Twitter hasn’t removed any of Trump’s tweets, but flagged or hidden them as inaccurate or violent. While legal scholars have been asserting that the order cannot withstand legal scrutiny, Media Matters’ Matt Gertz stresses that it serves a useful purpose for Trump nonetheless — and that purpose has been identified by the “notoriously stupid” Fox News host Steve Doocy.

“President Donald Trump capped off a multi-day tantrum at Twitter for appending a mild fact-check to one of his false tweets by retaliating with the power of the federal government,” Gertz explains. “The executive order he signed Thursday is slapdash and incoherent, rooted in a false premise, hypocritical and potentially unconstitutional, legally unenforceable yet dangerously authoritarian, with sections that read like a Fox News screed. But to analyze the executive order’s flaws is to miss the point entirely.”

That purpose, according to Gertz, is “raising the cost of defiance until his perceived enemies break” — and the executive order “forces Twitter to expend resources fighting it, but if the company bends to Trump and does what he wants, maybe it will just go away.”

“Steve Doocy of all people — the notoriously stupid ‘Fox & Friends’ host who is one of the president’s favorite cable news personalities — (inadvertently) nailed it on Wednesday,” Gertz notes. “Social media companies would face ‘a big headache’ if Trump tried to repeal the section of federal law that the executive order targets, he exclaimed, so ‘they might think twice about putting a footnote on a tweet from the president of the United States.’”

Gertz emphasizes that with his executive order, Trump is “drawing a line between companies that defy him and are punished and those that work to benefit him and receive praise.” Trump, Gertz observes, “lauded Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for criticizing Twitter’s decision to fact-check him.”

“Zuckerberg is the poster child for what Trump wants from the head of a social media company,” according to Gertz. “The Republican political operatives he hired to run Facebook’s policy wing have carved out exemptions from the site’s rules for Trump and his media allies. Trump is making clear that it is in the interests of other social media platforms like Twitter and YouTube to adopt that same corporate strategy — and he will continue to raise the temperature until they do.”

==

===

see parscale on facebook roll, working the refs, dirty tricks

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/brad-parscale/

an 5/20

Why is this happening? There are a few journalists out there who are in the tank for Trump and ready to sell whatever nutty conspiracy theory he throws out. But mostly it’s because so much of the mainstream media,terrified of being accused of having a “liberal bias,” will go out of its way to minimize real Republican scandals while blowing up often-imaginary Democratic scandals, all in a bid to appear “balanced.”

a. m

==

5/20

Conservative Voices Silenced By Online Platforms After Raising Questions Amid Pandemic

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 11:07 AM PT — Monday, May 11, 2020

Conservative views have come under increased scrutiny during the COVID-19 crisis as questions are raised and online content is abruptly censored.

One America’s White House Correspondent Jenn Pellegrino has more.

joe messina the reaL Side, vimeo (he pays for acc't); if mandatory vaccine, wd you take it? 2nd q: why CDC change #? 7 min later, video's pulled. no appeal he says' jenn: why can't we let ppl decide? jm: i'm not a conspir.

==

==

db

Twitter Deleted Sheriff Clarke’s Wildly Reckless Coronavirus Tweets, So He Says He’s Quitting

TAKING HIS TALENTS ELSEWHERE

After being punished for promoting coronavirus disinformation on Twitter, the former Milwaukee sheriff claims he’ll move over to a social-media app popular with conservatives.

Will Sommer

Updated Mar. 16, 2020 6:10PM ET / Published Mar. 16, 2020 2:49PM ET

Shannon Finney/Getty

Twitter on Monday deleted tweets from former Milwaukee Sheriff and staunch Donald Trump ally David Clarke Jr. that downplayed the severity of the coronavirus by calling for businesses to ignore local ordinances aimed at stopping the pandemic.

On Sunday night, Clarke sent a series of tweets suggesting that the newly enacted measures ordering bars and restaurants to shut down were part of a scheme to destroy capitalism. Clarke urged local businesses to defy the law and stay open.

“It is now evident that this is an orchestrated attempt to destroy CAPITALISM,” Clarke wrote in a since deleted tweet. “First sports, then schools and finally commercial businesses. Time to RISE UP and push back. Bars and restaurants should defy the order. Let people decide if they want to go out.”

Four Ways Experts Say Coronavirus Nightmare Could End

SCENARIOS

Olivia Messer

Clarke also told his more than 900,000 followers on Twitter, in a now-deleted tweet, that coronavirus is the “DAMN FLU.” Clarke also suggested that billionaire Democratic financier George Soros, a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, was somehow involved in the pandemic.

Clarke’s tweets were deleted for breaking Twitter’s policy against “encouraging self-harm,” according to a Twitter spokesperson. But several tweets from Clarke’s rant remained accessible on the site as of Monday afternoon, including the tweet mentioning Soros and a tweet urging Clarke’s followers to “GO INTO THE STREETS” and visit restaurants.

GO INTO THE STREETS FOLKS. Visit bars, restaurants, shopping malls, CHURCHES and demand that your schools re-open. NOW!

If government doesn’t stop this foolishness...STAY IN THE STREETS.

END GOVERNEMNT CONTROL OVER OUR LIVES. IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

THIS IS AN EXPLOITATION OF A CRISIS.

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) March 15, 2020

Twitter didn’t comment on why some of Clarke’s tweets had remained on the site.

Clarke, an outspoken Trump supporter who has claimed he was in the running for a Homeland Security job in the Trump administration, blasted Twitter for deleting the tweets in a statement to The Daily Beast that his press person demanded be printed in full (but which we’re not doing since we never agreed to do such a thing before he sent it).

“I notice that everytime I get on a roll excoriating liberals and their policies, complaints about my Tweets start to pop up,” Clarke told The Daily Beast. “I find it interesting that The Daily Beast can actually get a hold of a live spokesperson at Twitter. I nor anybody else can do that as thetotalitarian fascist speech suppression bullies at Twitter cleverly have a system that doesn’t allow anyone to reach a human being during its appeal process. All I get are computer generated responses.”

Clarke said he would focus his energies in the future on Parler, a social-media app similar to Twitter that’s become popular with conservatives.

“My tweets are not for the feint (sic) of heart and that won’t change,” Clarke wrote.

Clarke also sent The Daily Beast a critical meme about him, comparing the former sheriff to black-face-wearing actor Al Jolson and calling Clarke the “only black life that doesn’t matter.”

“I didn’t complain,” Clarke said in the statement. “Politics is a contact sport. You are going to hit and sometimes you will be hit. Mine aren’t this vile however. People including Twitter officials don’t like my content and I won’t seek their approval.”

RELATED IN POLITICS

Trump Supporters Fuel ‘Election Year’ Coronavirus Claim

WH Privately Works Conservative Influencers on Coronavirus

Trump Identifies the Real Coronavirus Victim: His Presidency]

Clarke’s social media missives have raised difficult questions for the platforms; mainly, what role do they play in suppressing disinformation in a time of a global medical crisis and how exactly do they go about undertaking that task.

Clarke isn’t the only prominent Trump supporter downplaying the risks associated with the coronavirus. On Sunday, former New York Police Department commissioner Bernard Kerik suggested that anti-coronavirus measures were hysteria “being created to destabilize the country.”

Why do I feel this hysteria is being created to destabilize the country, and destroy the unparalleled and historic economic successes of President @realDonaldTrump?

Worldwide Deaths... Jan-Feb 2020

2,360: Coronavirus

69,602: Common Cold/Flu

240,950: HIV

— Bernard B. Kerik (@BernardKerik) March 16, 2020

Some voices further on the right-wing fringe have also been able to advocate dangerous responses to the coronavirus. An account claiming to belong to Liz Crokin, a prominent promoter of the Pizzagate and QAnon conspiracy theories who has been banned from Twitter in the past, urged her 10,000 followers not to wash their hands. The account claimed the idea of hand-washing to stop the spread of the coronavirus is “media propaganda.” 

As of Monday afternoon, the tweet was still visible on Twitter.

===

==

320 wapo

The Fix

Analysis

Twitter removes David Clarke’s tweets as he and other Trump allies sow coronavirus conspiracy theories and doubts

By

Aaron Blake

March 16, 2020 at 2:09 p.m. PDT

“If you’re healthy, you and your family, it’s a great time to go out and go to a local restaurant, likely you can get in easy. Let’s not hurt the working people in this country...go to your local pub” pic.twitter.com/jXdhOfwe9R

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) March 15, 2020

On CNN on Sunday morning, Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, urged people to stop going out to eat and drink. “I would like to see a dramatic diminution of the personal interaction that we see in restaurants and in bars,” he said. “Whatever it takes to do that, that’s what I’d like to see.”

The same morning, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) appeared on Fox News with an almost diametrically opposed bit of advice. “If you’re healthy — you and your family — it’s a great time to go out and go to a local restaurant. Likely you can get in easy,” he said, adding, “Go to your local pub. ”

Nunes said he didn’t want the lack of work to harm the employees of those establishments, and that’s a legitimate concern as the stock market tumbles. But Fauci indicated that the bigger concern right now is the spread of a deadly disease.

And even as officials such as Fauci have increasingly urged people to socially distance themselves and take the coronavirus seriously, a number of top allies of President Trump, such as Nunes, have pressed forward with very different messages. Some of them have even floated conspiracy theories. While Trump’s commentary on the virus has routinely been more optimistic than that of health officials, these allies seem to have taken his cue and gone quite a bit further in stoking doubts about the whole thing.

Update: Trump was asked about Nunes’s comments on Monday afternoon, when he himself urged people to stay away from bars and restaurants. Trump said, “I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that from Devin or anybody else." But when told of the substance, he said, “I would disagree with it, but right now we don’t have an order one way or another. But I think it’s probably better that you don’t.”

Among them Sunday was a man Trump recently pardoned, former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik. Kerik said on Twitter: “Why do I feel this hysteria is being created to destabilize the country, and destroy the unparalleled and historic economic successes of President @realDonaldTrump?” He then compared the virus death toll (which is still climbing rapidly) to other causes of death worldwide.

Why do I feel this hysteria is being created to destabilize the country, and destroy the unparalleled and historic economic successes of President @realDonaldTrump?

Worldwide Deaths... Jan-Feb 2020

2,360: Coronavirus

69,602: Common Cold/Flu

240,950: HIV

— Bernard B. Kerik (@BernardKerik) March 16, 2020

In another set of tweets, Kerik attacked mayors and governors who he felt were overreacting to the coronavirus.

“Where is the unity, calming of fears, leadership, and the message that we as a country are going to get through this?” Kerik said. “President @realDonaldTrump is the only leader in the whole damned country! The rest are instilling fear, and are going to push 30% of the country into poverty!”

Where is the unity, calming of fears, leadership, and the message that we as a country are going to get through this? President @realDonaldTrump is the only leader in the whole damned country! The rest are instilling fear, and are going to push 30% of the country into poverty!

— Bernard B. Kerik (@BernardKerik) March 16, 2020

Another outspoken Trump-supporting former police chief, former Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke, was even more conspiratorial. He suggested on Twitter that the alleged hysteria was being pushed by liberal billionaire George Soros — a common subject of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories — and urged people to take to the streets.

“Not ONE media outlet has asked about George Soros’s involvement in this FLU panic,” Clarke said. “He is SOMEWHERE involved in this. ”

Not ONE media outlet has asked about George Soros’s involvement in this FLU panic. He is SOMEWHERE involved in this.

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) March 15, 2020

Early in the Trump administration, Clarke said he accepted a top post at the Department of Homeland Security, then abruptly withdrew that acceptance. He, like Nunes, also urged people to disregard the advice to stay away from crowded places. He told his 917,000 followers, in fact, to take to the streets as a form of protest.

“GO INTO THE STREETS FOLKS,” he said. “Visit bars, restaurants, shopping malls, CHURCHES and demand that your schools reopen. NOW! If government doesn’t stop this foolishness … STAY Ind. THE STREETS. END GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER OUR LIVES. IF NOT NOW, WHEN? THIS IS AN EXPLOITATION OF A CRISIS. ”

GO INTO THE STREETS FOLKS. Visit bars, restaurants, shopping malls, CHURCHES and demand that your schools re-open. NOW!

If government doesn’t stop this foolishness...STAY IN THE STREETS.

END GOVERNEMNT CONTROL OVER OUR LIVES. IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

THIS IS AN EXPLOITATION OF A CRISIS.

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) March 15, 2020

Twitter has taken down other Clarke tweets in accordance with its policy against tweets that encourage self-harm, including one in which he urged people to “defy the order” to not go to restaurants and bars and another in which he referred to the idea that “we have to err on the side of caution” using an expletive.

...

===

==

mma 320

youTube protected VDare's account. That account is now calling for a secessionist ethnostate in the United States.

==

==

https://gizmodo.com/i-went-to-cpac-to-see-how-conservatives-think-big-tech-1842048130

no lnx pix

I Went to CPAC to See How Conservatives Think Big Tech Is Censoring Them

Polling has shown that Republican voters, by and large, buy Donald Trump’s repeated and baseless claims that social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are systematically trying to hound right-wingers off the internet. But it isn’t clear what exactly they think is going on behind the scenes beyond a gut feeling that something nefarious is happening.

Gizmodo went to the belly of the beast, Conservative Political Action Conference 2020 (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, to ask conservatives whether they think social media companies are biased against them and what, specifically, they think they can’t say online anymore. We received a range of answers, ranging from the anecdotal and apocryphal to complaints about poor user support and enforcement of policies against misgendering and hate speech. We also looked into some of their accounts to see if we could figure out what the hell is going on. (Some of the interviews have been condensed for brevity.)

So, CPAC attendees, what can’t you say online anymore?

“Grizzly Joe,” podcaster

I understand the argument that they are [censoring conservatives on social media], because it seems like a lot of conservative stuff gets shut down. But a lot of it, I guess to an extent they are, but a lot of it too is how conservatives talk. I know people that, friends, well known friends that I’m not going to name, that get suspended from Twitter, etc. and stuff. But it is because it’s the way they present the stuff. I’m retired NYPD, so I know how to talk to people, and I know how to, you know, smooth talk people and still get my point across. I agree that something is going on in the algorithms... But there’s something that works against conservatives on social media. There’s no question about it. But like I said, some of the people that complain “Oh, I’m being shadowbanned, oh, I lost a hundred followers last night on Twitter.” Now, I take my Twitter feed very seriously and curate it. If you’re a porn bot, a buxom young lady with ample chestitude we’ll call it, I’ll investigate, but then I block those things so I don’t lose followers. So when people say, “Oh, well, I lost all these followers.” Yeah, but if you let her! I have 35,000 followers on Twitter. If I let everybody follow me over here that ever follows me? I put it being easily a hundred thousand.

Mhm.

And so if they want to, if Twitter goes through once around, cleans out the porn bots, lets say, or the other whatever nonsense is going. Yeah. If you don’t watch who follows you when Twitter decides to clean out the garbage, you don’t lose followers. Don’t whine to me that you’re losing followers when they’re all fake accounts with buxom young ladies in the profile, you know what I mean? But I have no doubt that there is maybe like a certain algorithm bias against. Surely I don’t doubt that some people get shut down automatically.

[...]

Yeah. Do you think it’s selectively enforced to add followers on one side, more on the other?

I have no doubt that it’s selectively enforced up to a point because it does seem a lot of let’s just say left of center stuff, is allowed to happen.

You know, yappity yap, whatever kind of B.S. pinko commie sons of bitches say on it, and it seems to affect the right side more. Because we know there is a human element in there somewhere. Once in awhile, there’s somebody comes out, a whistleblower or whatever comes out and says, “I worked at wherever and this is what they do.” So you start to see behind the curtain. It is what it is, it’s a private businesses that can do whatever the hell they want. But they should be clear about what they will permit and not.

Laura Loomer, congressional candidate banned from Uber and Lyft for racism

... I was banned for a tweet in which I said [Minnesota Representative] Ilhan Omar was anti-Jewish. And I posted a tweet after she was elected, and they said that it was hate speech for me saying she was anti-Jewish.

Uh huh. That was the specific wording that you used?

Yeah. That she is pro-Sharia and anti-Jewish.

Oh, OK. So you said something Islamophobic.

So it’s Islamophobic to point out Jew hatred?

No, it’s Islamophobic to accuse her of being pro-Sharia just because-

She is. She is pro Sharia. The use of hijab displays the fact that she is pro-Sharia. She’s upholding Islamic law.

So you don’t think that you can, you know, just say that on Twitter anymore.

There is nothing wrong. It’s completely factual. And she pals around with Linda Sarsour.

[Loomer once handcuffed herself to the Twitter offices in an unsuccessful attempt to get her account back. Representative Omar does not support the imposition of Sharia law.]

“Foreman Mike,” guy crowdfunding a border wall

I absolutely do. It’s my firm belief that the distortion of the truth comes right from their keyboards. I believe the leaning liberal left, the socialist movement, for whatever reason, is trying to stop conservative beliefs and capitalism in business and basically just give the web and the country away. Let’s let everybody in. Everybody gets free stuff and we can ride a unicorn, I don’t agree with that at all.

But what specifically do you think you can’t say on Facebook or Twitter anymore?

There’s a lot of stuff that you can’t say. There’s a lot of stuff that would get you banned or barred or thrown off. I do not handle any of my Twitter accounts. They’re handled by a specialist and my personal accounts, I stay very guarded. I don’t curse, use religious slangs, or you know, you can’t use any color remarks. You know, people, you know, down at the street level, regular guys, we’re all hanging out. Martin and Jeff. And you do that on Facebook or something, you get barred or get suspended for breaching your belief or saying what you want.

What do you mean by saying what you want?

Well, there’s people out there. I see they get thrown off every month. They go to so-called Facebook jail, you know, for making a comment about your dog’s ugly or I don’t like Ford, or whatever it is. You know, and you see it more and more, it’s become more prevalent. Ten years ago, it wasn’t like that.

Yeah but, do you say like, an example of [such] a comment is “Your dog is ugly”?

Let’s use gun rights. In other words [...] nobody’s got a right to take my Second Amendment away, you know, free speech. And then somebody on the opposing side can say the exact same thing, but the conservative gets barred.

But not for saying that they support gun rights.

Oh, you know, fighting, fighting and bitching and hollering about the government. You know, people have to learn how to write comments again. They have to learn to write correctly again so they’re not so offensive.

Steve, student from New Jersey

Well, just the other day there’s the guy. There’s um, on Twitter there, I don’t know if you ever heard of this musician, Zuby? He’s like a pro-Trump guy. I think he’s always lived in Ghana or something, Nigeria. Nigeria. But he basically like, he just said, like, OK dude, to like a reply that was like coming after him, insulting him or something. And then he got reported for misgendering the person, you know, it wasn’t even like supposed to be about the gender.

Like stuff like that that’s just like, like, politically correct madness.

So do you think that misgendering people is politically, er, a policy against it-

Well it wasn’t misgendering at all! Like I call people dude all the time. It doesn’t matter what gender they are. Just like, just like hypersensitivity, anything like just assuming like the worst about people’s motives. That’s stuff that like I can’t stand.

[Zuby’s website says he lives and was born in England, grew up in Saudi Arabia, and attended Oxford. The user he was responding to, data scientist Emily Gorcenski, says she is regularly misgendered on social media; Twitter prompted Zuby to delete the tweet but did not suspend his account.]

Kevin Thomas, student

I absolutely do. You know, me as a conservative, browsing through Facebook and Twitter I see, you know, almost nothing except for these liberal advertisers, for these Democratic candidates’ campaigns and such, when, you know, you see on other platforms on the internet itself how it will tailor its advertisements to the things you look at, the things you do, the things you browse.

But it just so happens that on social media, that’s not the case. You know, whereas everywhere else on the internet, that is exactly what happens. Therefore, I can only see that as a kind of bias where they want to show everybody these different liberal advertisements.

Do you think that they’re censoring conservatives in other ways? Like, there’s users that complain about bans, stuff like that?

Absolutely. You know, you see on Twitter all the time users that are tweeting these pro-gun, anti-abortion tweets, getting banned from Twitter, for terms of use violations when it’s perfectly fine and not a violation of any sort of terms of service to glorify the killing of infants, and the killing of babies and infanticid and such like that.

Can you provide any specific examples of a tweet that you’ve seen somebody get in trouble for? Like, what was the specific wording there?

I can I can absolutely provide the example of a user who’s had his tweets taken down. Matt Walsh, tends to have some tweets taken down, a writer from the Daily Wire, has had several tweets taken down. As far as actual wording, you know, I want to say that it’s more so his anti-abortion tweets, saying that somebody that is against abortion or somebody that is pro abortion, sorry, is in the wrong, and it is the same thing as murder and killing somebody.

Sharon Caldwell, attendee...

==

no lnx

Here’s how a conspiracy theorist banned from Twitter made the journey from the ‘alt-right fringe’ to a GOP congressional candidate

Written by Alex Henderson February 28, 2020

Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, known for her anti-Muslim posts on social media and claims that mass shootings are false flag operations, is so extreme that she has even been banned from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). But that isn’t preventing the 26-year-old Loomer from seeking the Republican nomination in South Florida’s 21st Congressional District, where she is hoping to run against incumbent Democratic Rep. Lois Frankel in 2020’s general election. And Amanda Carpenter takes a look at Loomer’s journey from the “alt-right” fringe to congressional candidate in a February 28 article for The Bulwark.

Carpenter, who is a CNN contributor in addition to her work for The Bulwark, is no liberal: she formerly served as communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz and a speechwriter for Sen. Jim DeMint. But Loomer, as Carpenter explains, is not a run-of-the-mill conservative — other Republicans shunned her in the past, and she has been banned from social media platforms ranging from Twitter to Facebook to Instagram.

As a candidate, Carpenter notes, Loomer’s “plan” is “to present herself as a politically incorrect social media martyr” — and she has reached out to President Donald Trump for help, declaring herself to be a staunch Trumpista.

“Whereas Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Lyft, Venmo, GoFundMe, Medium, Uber and UberEats have standards of behavior for members, the United States Congress does not,” Carpenter asserts. “‘Member of Congress’ is one of the few jobs where Loomer’s anti-Muslim tweets, musings that mass shootings are false flag operations and outlandish protests aren’t automatic disqualifications. In fact, those positions will probably help her attract a committed, albeit nutty, base of support.”

In May 2019, Carpenter recalls, Loomer appeared on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ show — where she “sounded like a woman on the brink” and “wailed like a teenager” after her inflammatory posts got her banned from Instagram and Facebook. But now that she’s running for Congress, Carpenter laments, Loomer’s claim that she is a political martyr “seems to be working. Loomer has transformed from a fringe member of the alt-right internet to someone embraced by people in the highest levels of GOP leadership.”

Carpenter goes on to list some of the Republicans who are now supporting Loomer’s campaign — including Trump, whose Mar-a-Lago resort is in her district.

“President Trump has tweeted supportively of her race, his presidential campaign is renting out her e-mail list — and Trump’s 2016 Florida director, Karen Giorno, is managing her campaign,” Carpenter reports. “Republican Rep. Jim Jordan appears to have rented out her list too. And Loomer claims endorsements from high-profile personalities and friends of Trump, including Roger Stone, Jeanine Pirro, Bo Snerdly and Michelle Malkin.”

Moreover, Carpenter adds, Republican Joe Gruters (a Florida state senator and chairman of the Florida Republican Party) “held a press conference with her (in January) to promote legislation that he said was inspired by Loomer. The bill, Stop Social Media Censorship Act, would allow people such as Loomer to sue Twitter for damages if their speech is censored or deleted. It’s commonly known as ‘Loomer’s Law.’”

According to Carpenter,  Loomer’s campaign “has raised more than $350,000 and had $115,000 cash on hand.”

“Take Laura Loomer’s name out of the picture here,” Carpenter laments, “and you have what appears to be a well-connected, establishment campaign designed for a rising party star.”

The good news is that if Loomer does win the GOP nomination, her chances of defeating Frankel in the general election are slim: Florida’s 21st Congressional District, Carpenter points out, “is safely Democratic” — and in 2016’s presidential election, Hillary Clinton carried that district by 19%. Had the entire state of Florida voted like the 21st Congressional District in 2016, Clinton would have won Florida’s electoral votes hands down.

But Loomer’s “longshot” campaign, Carpenter stresses, is a publicity stunt — and her chances of actually defeating Frankel should she win the nomination are “almost beside the point.” Plus, Trump now claims Florida, not New York City, as his primary residence and can vote in Florida elections.

“If the president of the United States votes for her in 2020,” Carpenter asks, “what further validation does she need?”

==

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/full-frontal-samantha-bee-highlights-media-matters-research-exposing-conservatives-bogus

===

www.washingtonpost.com › technology › 2019/08/20 › facebook-make...

Facebook releases anti-conservative-bias report authored by ...

Aug 20, 2019 - Facebook makes small tweaks after anti-conservative-bias report. ... Facebook released the interim results of an audit into its alleged ... The report, conducted by a Republican former senator and a law firm, did not present any ... media sites exhibit political bias, pointing to Silicon Valley's liberal leanings ...

www.mediamatters.org › facebook › after-enabling-right-wing-propa...

After enabling right-wing propaganda, Facebook hires a Fox ...

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#3c4043;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{6 days ago - Facebook News will serve its billions of users with a dedicated tab including news content ... political operatives, :{hired a former Republican senator to produce a report on Facebook's alleged liberal bias:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, encouraged its ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.dailykos.com › story ›

Zuckerberg Hires Fox Senior Producer as Video Strategy Head

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#3c4043;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{1 day ago - Just an alert — Media Matters reports: Facebook has reportedly named Jennifer Williams, ... :{hired a former Republican senator to produce a report on Facebook's alleged liberal bias:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, encouraged its fact-checking consortium ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.politico.com › story › 2019/08/20 › facebook-audit-conservativ...

Conservatives, liberals slam Facebook bias audit - POLITICO

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#3c4043;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Aug 20, 2019 - :{Facebook's:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: audit of conservative claims of :{bias:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: on the social network drew sharp criticism from ... on Tuesday, with a leading :{Republican:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: calling it a whitewash and :{liberals:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: saying it legitimizes unfounded :{allegations:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of anti-conservative censorship. The eight-page interim :{report:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, authored by :{former Sen:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Missing: , hired ‎| Must include:, hired

www.engadget.com › facebook-liberal-bias-report-findings

An independent report on Facebook's alleged liberal bias tells ...

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#3c4043;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Aug 20, 2019 - An independent :{report on Facebook's alleged liberal bias:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: tells us nothing ... Last year, it asked :{former Republican Senator:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Jon Kyl and his team at ... For example, it notes that :{Facebook:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: plans to :{create:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: an oversight board to ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Missing: , hired ‎| Must include:, hired

===

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/14/facebook-conservatives-big-tech/

teno lnx grafs

CH

Facebook’s Recent Algorithm Changes Are Laying Waste To Conservative And Liberal Outlets

DCMS Hold Select Committee on Fake News And Disinformation

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

CHRIS WHITE

TECH REPORTER

July 14, 2019

Conservative pundit Deneen Borelli is blaming Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg after she lost her commentary gig at the BlazeTV.

Borelli’s cancelled Facebook show comes shortly after the company dramatically changed its algorithms to de-emphasize political content.

Facebook’s changes are appear to be affecting smaller outlets and individual pundits at a greater rate than larger media entities like Fox News or NBC, according to one tech expert.

Facebook recently changed its algorithms to steer focus away from explicitly political content, but now that alteration is laying waste to conservative and liberal outlets.

Conservative pundit Deneen Borelli laid into Facebook last week, telling her followers on July 9 that the company’s bias against conservatives cost her a job. In fact, she is holding CEO Mark Zuckerberg chiefly responsible after BlazeTV cancelled her Facebook show, “Here’s the Deal.”

“And Mark, I hold you responsible for the high-tech lynching of my job,” Borelli, a black conservative who gained a large following during her run, said in her final video on July 9, which received more than 374,000 views as of the posting of this article. Reports appear to show that Facebook’s algorithm shift is suppressing content across all platforms.

WATCH:

A BlazeTV representative confirmed to the Daily Caller News Foundation that her show was cancelled due to a lack of viewership. (RELATED: Conservatives Say Facebook Is Suppressing Much Of Their Content. Here’s What Experts Say)

“My videos were not clickbait. I didn’t engage in over-the-top antics to get attention. I wasn’t shrill, and my videos were not challenged by a fact-check organization,” Borelli added. She told the DCNF she started seeing her content crater after she spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in late-February.

“It is obvious Facebook is a liberal platform and my first thought was that it was the company that was trying to silence my speech,” Borelli told the DCNF, echoing a common criticism conservatives level against big tech companies. “One thing that has to be noted is that I am a prominent, female, black conservative.”

She added: “The left does not want my message to get out and to resonate, especially with black voters who may be open-minded to hearing what I have to say, or women who may be open to what I have to say.” Borelli’s husband, Tom Borelli, echoed much of his wife’s position in an interview with the DCNF.

“A good video in the old days would get 30,000 views in an hour. Now we are getting that in a day,” said Tom Borelli, a contributor at the Conservative Review, which merged with Blaze in 2018. “Something is going on with Facebook. We have not seen the kind of dropoffs like we have with Facebook on Twitter, so there is something specific about Facebook.”

A screencap of plot points of Deneen Borelli’s daily Facebook likes following CPAC is pictured. (Image courtesy of Emily William)

A screencap of plot points data scientist Emily William made of Deneen Borelli’sdaily Facebook likes following CPAC is pictured. (Image courtesy of Emily William)

Deneen Borelli’s engagements plummeted between Dec. 29, 2018 and April 20, 2019, according to data scientist Emily Williams, who conducted a detailed analysis of “Here’s the Deal’s” content on behalf of the DCNF. Her measurements showed a marked decrease in circulation during Deneen Borelli’s Feb. 28 appearance at CPAC.

Williams’ linear regression analysis examined Deneen Borelli’s total “likes” as a function of the variables “time” and “pre or during/post CPAC.” To investigate the possibility of difference between the two sections’ slopes — before and after CPAC — she also included an interaction term between “time” and “pre or during/post CPAC.” The BlazeTV provided data on Deneen Borelli’s show, which Williams then analyzed.

“A statistically significant change occurred in the rate of increase in total lifetime likes starting about the time of CPAC,” said Williams, who founded research group Whole-Systems-Enterprises.  “This analysis supports the ‘eyeball’ analysis that indicated a problem in the first place, but puts some statistical heft behind the conclusion.”

[A passerby takes a photograph of an inflatable angry emoji during a protest outside the Facebook 2019 Annual Shareholder Meeting in Menlo Park, California, U.S., May 30, 2019. REUTERS/Stephen Lam]

“It’s scary that these voices are being silenced, because of an algorithm change. I wonder what would have happened to the Federalist Papers today if that was contingent on Twitter,” Williams said, referring to what she said are people’s growing dependence on Facebook and Google’s business models for their careers.

When Facebook, Google or Twitter switches off the algorithm, it creates a type of butterfly effect on downstream content, particularly for people who don’t have a megaphone, she added. Fox News, NBC and other major media outlets can take the hit when Facebook makes major changes, but smaller entities are disproportionately affected.

Facebook updated its News Feed ranking algorithm in May to incorporate data from surveys about who people say are their closest friends. The company announced at the time that it’s training new classifiers based on patterns linking these surveys with usage data, effectively redirecting traffic toward close-knit groups and away from clickbait.

Facebook has not responded to the DCNF’s repeated requests for comments, but the company frequently tells reporters that it does not discriminate against conservatives or construct its system in ways to suppress conservative content.

The changes have been profound, not only for people like Deneen Borelli but also for liberal outlets, like NowThis News. (RELATED: Zuckerberg Announces Big Changes To Facebook. Here’s What People Should Expect)

NowThis News, known for publishing left-leaning content, has seen its combined monthly video views across Facebook and other platforms drop 50%, tumbling from 1.5 billion video views in 2018 to 729 million views in May 2019, according to a report from digital marketing group Digiday. Facebook contributed more than 550 million of the 729 million views NowThis accumulated in May, reports show.

Those numbers are down from June 2018, when Facebook accounted for 1.3 billion views. NowThis has been able to stay afloat, thanks in part to the video publisher’s monthly YouTube views, which went from 7.6 million in June 2018 to 20.5 million in May 2019 and from 73.4 million views to 97.2 million views on Twitter over the same period, per Tubular data.

==

==

rww 1119

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio addressed a group of conservatives at the Leadership Institute this morning in Arlington, Virginia, for the organization’s Wednesdays Wake-Up Club breakfast series, where he advised those in attendance to avoid talking about socialism and instead frame conversations that would otherwise involve the topic around “the loss of freedom.”

Jordan is a member of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, which was responsible for pushing former speaker John Boehner from power, and has evolved as a group that reliably attacks those who challenge President Donald Trump.

The Leadership Institute is a Washington, D.C., organization that trains right-wing activists, often college-aged or younger, on messaging and activism for conservative causes, and recruits future candidates for elected office with training on how to run a campaign. Scheduled workshops for the month of May include sessions on fundraising, grant writing, communications, debate, and media appearances. The group aims to train mainstream conservative groups, but occasionally far-right activists have enrolled in its training workshops and used those lessons for their own causes. Among those who have received training from LI are James O’Keefe of Project Veritas and Ralph Reed, the Republican political operative who leads the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Leadership Institute president Morton C. Blackwell opened up the event by talking about ongoing conflicts in Venezuela, where the United States has voiced its support for forces in the country that oppose the embattled President Nicolas Maduro.

“I choose not to predict what is going to happen, but if I had to bet, I would put my money on Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton,” Blackwell said.

Bolton claims that “key figures” in the Maduro regime “committed to support ousting Maduro,” and has been calling on them to “fulfill their commitments.”

After reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and listening to remarks by an intern and a program director at the Leadership Institute, audience members heard from Jordan. The Ohio congressman began his remarks by praising the Leadership Institute, where he said he received media training there early in Congressional career. He went on to say that policies being pushed by prominent figures in the Democratic Party—measures on immigration and voting rights—were among “some of the most radical positions” he had ever seen.

“The reason I think the left is so crazy—they don’t start from the same premise we do. They really don’t, and I think this is important to understand. I think everyone in this room believes that we live in the greatest nation in history. The left doesn’t start there. They think America is just one of the 190-some countries on the planet,” Jordan said. “And when you start from the wrong premise, I think that leads to all kinds of problems.”

Then Jordan told Leadership Institute attendees that the message from the right, when you boil it all down, is: “Freedom is under attack right now in this country.” He cited the debunked notion that conservatives were being “shadow banned” by the social media platforms of technology companies, the rise of “politically correct” environments on college campuses, and Democrats advocating for “big government” and using that power to attack conservatives. Jordan went on advise that conservatives find ways to re-frame their critiques of socialism.

“Don’t talk about socialism. Talk about the loss of freedom,” Jordan told Leadership Institute.

He continued, “It’s about a system that takes away freedom. When you don’t have capitalism, free markets, free enterprise, liberty, freedom, fundamental rights protected, bad things happen, and we are seeing it play out on TV right now in Venezuela. So, our charge is talk what the loss of freedom looks like and how great we’ve had it in this country. If we do that, we’ll be just fine.”

Tags: Jim JordanLeadership Institute

===

https://www.thedailybeast.com/diamond-and-silk-to-testify-before-house-judiciary-committee

4/18

Popular pro-Trump YouTube duo Diamond & Silk will testify next week before the House Judiciary Committee as part of a hearing examining “social media filtering and policing practices.” The flamboyant vloggers became a Republican cause célèbre at last week’s Facebook hearings (receiving more attention than more serious issues) after they claimed they were censored by the social-networking site for their right-wing politics. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg apologized for “an enforcement error” and said the website had reached out to the duo to resolve the situation—a claim Diamond & Silk disputed, despite email evidence proving them wrong. One of the lawmakers who took up the pro-Trump duo’s cause,Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), will testify before the panel. And along with Diamond & Silk, experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the News Media Alliance will testify. The committee also extended invitations for representatives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google to appear.

==

---