Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have censored links to peer reviewed papers published in mainstream science journals; Youtube deleted a video of an official government public hearing featuring government officials and respected scientists. Because a handful of billionaires now control all online speech.
Facebook permits only pro-vaccine comments and photos on their platform. Anything not in support of vaccinations may be removed. (I am fully vaccinated, FYI).
White House asserts it has a veto privilege over quotes used by news reporters. Hmmmm.
Link to an essay on the role that “technical authority”, media propaganda, and how “consensus of experts” are used to influence the public and to exert control over us. This essay is an eye opener.
Should billionaires control our public speech? Should billionaires be the ones to determine truth? Should billionaires have more power than elected government leaders?
The Minneapolis Police Department issued a press release after George Floyd died that was basically a lie, and omitted numerous critical details of the encounter. They later deleted the press release, apparently acknowledging it was not a true statement. The bogus press release is an example of pre-emptive propaganda, typical after police shootings – they release all the dirt they can find on the suspect, and then release a list of commendations and medals of the officers involved. In the case of George Floyd, the MPD left out crucial details – and this would have been all we knew if there had not been an independent video.
NY Post once again is censored by social media, this time by Facebook. FB is prohibiting users from sharing one of their news stories on FB.
Michael Moore’s film Planet of the Humans questions much of the “common wisdom” about solar power, wind energy and so forth and argues renewable energy has its own issues. Leading climate scientists sought to have the film censored from public viewing.
The sole purpose of social media is to serve as a frictionless platform for the spread of propaganda, in order to sell eyeballs to advertisers.
When government officials ask third parties to prohibit speech, they are practicing censorship via proxy. Legally, in the U.S., we still have the First Amendment. The answer to speech we do not like is to have more speech.