We need a strategy for dealing with censorship by the left

You can see this for now, while there are other things you cannot see at all, and do not even know you cannot see them because they have been obliterated by media proprietors as if they are private companies with no need to provide the service they promised once they forced the opposition out of the picture. If it’s not illegal to say something, then it should be illegal to remove anything from twitter, facebook and youtube. The backstory here: Lauren Southern’s Documentary ‘Borderless’ Goes Viral Despite YouTube Censorship.


YouTube reportedly censored Lauren Southern’s latest documentary on the migrant crisis in Europe but it went gone viral nonetheless.

As of Monday morning her documentary had over 526,000 views.

 

Free speech consists only of what I think is reasonable to say

This is via AP and found in Campus Review: A third of online election news in Sweden ‘junk’: English study. No idea how well those people at Oxford speak Swedish, but this is a very strange story. How would they really know if the information provided was actually “mis-leading” and even more difficult to know, whether these non-factually accurate and biased reports were “deliberate” attempts to mislead? The one certainty, however, is the wish to prevent specific news stories from being read.

One in three news articles shared online about the upcoming Swedish election come from websites publishing deliberately misleading information, most with a right-wing focus on immigration and Islam, Oxford University researchers say.

Their study, published on Thursday, points to widespread online disinformation in the final stages of a tightly contested campaign that could mark a lurch to the right in one of Europe’s most prominent liberal democracies.

The authors, from the Oxford Internet Institute, labelled certain websites junk news, based on a range of detailed criteria. Reuters found the three most popular sites they identified have employed former members of the Sweden Democrats party; one has a former MP listed among its staff.

It was not clear whether the sharing of junk news had affected voting intentions in Sweden, but the study helps show the impact platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have on elections, and how domestic or foreign groups can use them to exacerbate sensitive social and political issues.

Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, whose centre-left Social Democrats have dominated politics since 1914 but are now unlikely to secure a ruling majority, told Reuters the spread of false or distorted information online risked shaking “the foundations of democracy” if left unchecked.

The Institute, a department of Oxford University, analysed 275,000 tweets about the Swedish election from a 10-day period in August. It counted articles shared from websites it identified as junk news sources, defined as outlets that “deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news”.

“Roughly speaking, for every two professional content articles shared, one junk news article was shared. Junk news therefore constituted a significant part of the conversation around the Swedish general election,” it said.

A Twitter spokesman declined to comment on the results of the study.

Facebook, where interactions between users are harder to track, said it was working with Swedish officials to help voters spot disinformation. It has also partnered with Viralgranskaren – an arm of Sweden’s Metro newspaper – to identify, demote and counterbalance junk news on its site.

Joakim Wallerstein, head of communications for the Sweden Democrats, said he had no knowledge of or interest in the party sympathies of media outlets. Asked to comment on his party’s relationship with the sites identified by the study, he said he had been interviewed by one of them once.

“I think it is strange that a foreign institute is trying to label various news outlets in Sweden as junk news and release such a report in connection to an election,” he said.

Swedish security officials say there is currently no evidence of a coordinated online attempt by foreign powers to sway the September 9 vote, despite repeated government warnings about the threat.

What could “foreign powers” do that they were not doing themselves. The deep state exists everywhere.

Malicious censorship on the net by Twitter and Facebook

I tried to open the following article on twitter via my mobile phone – Details of Ocasio-Cortez’s Ties To George Soros Revealed – and this is what came up:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/details-ocasio-cortezs-ties-george-soros?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=MobileFloatingSharingButtons&utm_content=2018-08-19&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful or associated with a violation of Twitter’s Terms of Service. This link could lead to a site that:

  • steals your password or other personal information
  • installs malicious software programs on your computer
  • collects your personal information for spam purposes
  • has been associated with a violation of Twitter’s Terms of Service

Back to previous page

Learn more about unsafe links

Ignore this warning and continue 

I get something similar when I try to open up links to Rush Limbaugh.

Twitter, with 100% certainty, was not worried that my password would be stolen, that malicious software would be installed, or that personal information was being collected for spam purposes. They just wished to deter me from going to the website and reading the article that had been posted.

If they are a common carrier, any and all of this should be seen as an infringement of our right to free speech. Same again for Facebook, Google and any other purveyor of personal views. The phone company cannot decide whether to connect me to someone else based on their judgment over whether I should be allowed hear what other want to say to me or what I have to say to others. Same again that a common carrier should just carry and not offer their judgements.

If it is not illegal to say it, then it should be illegal for them to prevent someone from saying whatever it is.

All that then comes with this: Facebook has TRUST ratings for users – but it won’t tell you your score.

Earlier this year, Facebook admitted it was rolling out trust ratings for media outlets.

This involved ranking news websites based on the quality of the news they were reporting.

This rating would then be used to decide which posts should be promoted higher in users’ News Feeds.

It’s not clear exactly what users’ ratings are for, but it’s possible they may be used in a similar way.

But Facebook hasn’t revealed exactly how ratings are decided, or whether all users have a rating.

You’ll just have to trust them.

They believe they have a right and duty to keep you ignorant

Your choices are being limited by people on the left side of the political spectrum who prevent you from hearing alternative points of view because you might think these other views are actually correct. If they thought you would never agree with them, they would not try to stop you from hearing what these other points of view are.

It is an astonishing arrogance that Google, twittwr, Facebook, and other forms of social media – the “they” in the heading – believe they have the right and the duty to keep you from hearing other people’s opinions.

Open debate is the only defence against wrong opinion. Google stops you from hearing the truth at least some of the time, and perhaps as much as half the time. We should not put up with it. Totalitarians keep you from hearing other opinions that they do not agree with. Their aim is to take your freedom from you as best they can by preventing you from hearing opinions they do not think you should be allowed to find out.

Funny enough, you can find both Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto on Google, as you should. You just can’t find all of the videos from PraegerU,

Lindsay Shepherd and Mark Steyn

On the off chance you think the generations coming through to replace us are in some sense onside with the notion of free speech and an open society, then watch this video. As they discuss, argument from the left is reduced to ad hominem forms of personal attack. Since everything is socially constructed everything must be socially deconstructed. White males believe what they believe because it is in their personal interests to believe it. Therefore, nothing white males have to say has the slightest value so far as understanding the world is concerned. Non-white, non-males have the answers and are the only ones anyone should pay attention to, all the more so since truth is relative and never absolute.

In the video, Mark Steyn talks to Lindsay Shepherd, the Teaching Assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada who became internet famous at the end of 2017, when three members of the WLU faculty attempted to destroy her life for having shown a short Jordan Peterson public television clip to her students. She had, however, recorded her interview and then released the recording to the media which stopped them in their tracks, and has, in fact, made her famous. Articulate beyond her years, a product of the modern left though she is, she is a bridge between us and the millennial generation. She describes herself as “the most left-wing member of her family”.

Here as well is the original recording of Lindsay’s inquisition by the faculty at Wilfred Laurier, worth every minute of the 43 minutes it takes to listen to it through.

And if you want to see where this is heading, you should look at this and this. More people in “the shut up business”, as Steyn describes it. However, as one commenter on the MS/LS video said:

Peterson’s command of facts, deep understanding of human nature and group behaviour, and wealth of experience with people in need is a reality the SJWs and post modernists cannot deal with. And it rings true to those who listen to him. And gives them something real to anchor too.

So there is hope, as faint as it may well be.

The Mark Steyn interview comes via Expression, Identity, and the Corruption of the Academy.

What really matters is not what actually matters but who decides what matters

This is a twitter stream on Big Brother and Protecting Elections which really is not just funny but also relevant and serious.

And speaking of Facebook, let me also mention this: Mark Zuckerberg’s Fake News Problem Isn’t Going Away. From which:

In early September, Facebook disclosed that it sold $100,000 in political ads during the 2016 election to buyers who it later learned were connected to the Russian government. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mark Warner of Virginia, the most senior Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have said they’re considering holding a hearing, in which case Zuckerberg could be asked to testify.

Meanwhile, special counsel Robert Mueller has made Facebook a focus of his investigation into collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s campaign. A company official says it’s “in regular contact with members and staff on the Hill” and has “had numerous meetings over the course of many months” with Warner. On Sept. 21, Zuckerberg said the company would turn over the ads to Congress and would do more to limit interference in elections in the future. Facebook acknowledges that it has already turned over records to Mueller, which suggests, first, that the special counsel had a search warrant and, second, that Mueller believes something criminal happened on Zuckerberg’s platform. . . .

On Sept. 14, ProPublica reported that it had managed to purchase ads targeted at users who’d listed interests such as “Jew hater” and “How to burn Jews.”

Well they’ve stopped that now, but only after it was pointed out to them. Every new technology not only changes the way people find things out but also what things they find out. I am therefore a free speech absolutist which is why we should make it illegal for Facebook or Twitter and other platforms of the same kind to prevent people from saying things there that are perfectly legal to say anywhere else.

PDT reveals his soul

I wrote a while ago about being in need of some urgent advice in regard to a high school friend who I was then about to visit who continually sends me anti-Trump material from CNN etc. He is a two-times-over legal migrant, first from the Hungarian workers’ paradise to Canada in 1956, and then second from the Canadian workers’ paradise to not just the workers’ paradise of California, but to Silicon Valley itself in the early 1970s. There he ran his own business enterprise where he would sack willy nilly any excess staff at the mere hint of a downturn in demand but has been successful enough to end up in a $US5 million dollar home, his and hers Mercedes, a Mercedes van so that he can take his sailboard to the coast, not to mention his Porsche which he didn’t actually register for a number of years so that he could evade speed limits on the highways as he powered his way down the road. That is, he is an average and utterly normal member of the Democratic Party. And now he has sent me this which I will share with you in full with no edits: A Trump meltdown for the ages. From CNN, of course, from which everything below the line is found and with nothing left out.

_____

It was like watching a human Twitter feed.

A combative and unrestrained President Donald Trump opened his authentic political soul, in possibly the most memorable news conference in presidential history, that is certain to become a defining moment of his administration.
It was supposed to be a routine event at Trump Tower in New York to tout the President’s infrastructure plan.
But the session quickly veered off course into one of the most surreal political moments in years as Trump unloaded about the fallout from the weekend’s protests by “alt-right” activists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Virginia.
Gesticulating with his right hand, Trump blasted what he called the “alt-left,” protested that he had already condemned neo-Nazis and parroted far-right talking points on the Confederacy.
On the substance, it was a performance that quickly emboldened white nationalist groups and appeared certain to heighten racial tensions and fear in the country.
There’s no chance that Trump’s political team can finesse this one, or walk it back.
But the tone and the spectacle of Trump’s unchained performance was equally stunning.
The unapologetic, stream-of-consciousness style of delivery left no doubt at all: This was the real Trump, not the scripted version who appeared in the White House on Monday and tried to clean up his initial failure to condemn white supremacists after the death of a counter-protester in Charlottesville.
His anger emerged in a torrent, as he obliterated any benefit of the doubt he earned on Monday, thought piling on thought, in a style the nation has become accustomed to from his Twitter feed.
In the most incredible moment, as he stood at a podium bearing the seal of the President of the United States, Trump tore at the nation’s racial fault lines by appearing to offer a pass to a racist and neo-Nazi movement.
“I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said, returning to his original position about the protest in Charlottesville, saying that an extreme right demonstration in which marchers held torches and Swastikas and chanted racist and anti-Semitic slogans contained some “bad people …. but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”
Trump accused counter-demonstrators of being as violent as the white supremacists.
“What about the fact they came charging — that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do,” he said.
“I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said.
The President’s fury was first sparked when he was challenged by reporters on his handling of Charlottesville, evidence of how Trump’s extreme sensitivity to personal slights sometimes leads him into politically self-destructive behavior.
It was a display that will renew questions about the suitability of Trump’s temperament for the presidency, and at a time of increasing tensions around the world that will exacerbate fears he will be unable to control his emotions at a time of crisis as commander-in-chief.
Trump also condemned efforts to take down statues in southern states dedicated to heroes of the Civil War Confederacy.
“This week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after?”
“You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
It did not take long for key figures in the extreme right movement to take comfort in Trump’s remarks, after the news conference appeared to nudge the President closer to an isolated spot on the far right of US politics.
“Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa, wrote David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, on Twitter.
Some of Trump’s fellow Republicans were quick to condemn him.
“If you are showing up to a Klan rally you are probably a racist or a bigot,” Texas Rep Will Hurd said on CNN’s “The Situation Room.” “I think the outrage across the political spectrum about this is maybe the thing that ultimately unites us.”
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was also quick to rebuke Trump.
“Mr. President,you can’t allow #WhiteSupremacists to share only part of blame. They support idea which cost nation & world so much pain,” Rubio said on Twitter.
“These groups today use SAME symbols & same arguments of #Nazi & #KKK, groups responsible for some of worst crimes against humanity ever.”

The overall impression of Trump’s performance was of a president out of control, who is captive to his whims and instincts and defies any attempt to manage him — including by his new Chief of Staff John Kelly.
“That was all him — this wasn’t our plan,” a senior White House official told CNN’s Jeff Zeleny.
One person who has spent time with Trump over the past 24 hours describes the President as “distracted” and “irritable” in his interactions with top aides. Trump felt pressured into the Monday statement by staff members, the person said. As he went about his day Tuesday, Trump was upset and repeatedly returned to the topic, the person said, culminating in the lobby press conference.
CNN senior political analyst David Axelrod compared Trump to a “runaway truck, there are no brakes, there is no reverse.”
Axelrod also questioned why Kelly and other Trump aides even allowed the President to appear before reporters on Tuesday, given their presumed knowledge of the state of his mood over the Charlottesville coverage.
But ultimately, Tuesday’s stunning appearance will be remembered for the sentiments that passed the lips of a President of the United States.
In the long and tortured history of a nation still trying to work through its complicated story on race, Trump’s meltdown will stand out, as a moment ripped from the darkest pages of history and transposed into the 21st Century.
In the process, he appears to have abdicated any claim to the traditional presidential role as a moral voice for the nation and the world.

 

THE VIDEO OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE: Prompted by OldOzzie, here is the press conference so you can see it for yourself.

His infrastructure statement is pretty good as well!

The value of free speech

That letting everyone have their say on any matter of public importance is so evident as the best way to manage differences within a community was never better seen than in the last few days. In my view, there are very few really good liars around, with the Clintons and Obama among the best there is (and even they need the help of the even more mendacious media). Mostly, however, people say what they think, even when they are trying to shape their beliefs into a form that others will find acceptable. So with this in mind, I hope I may be permitted to put in a good word for Australia’s Grand Mufti. This is the press release that got him into such hot water.

mufti statement on paris

First, he didn’t write it. Someone else wrote the first draft and then it was gone over by others until they were satisfied that it said what they wanted said. If you can read what it says, you can see which side those who wrote it are on. Why shouldn’t they be on their own side? They mourn the loss of innocent lives rather than actively condemning the attacks. Such is as it is. What is important is for us to understand what they believe. Their plain speaking has set everything straight. Whether the knowledge we have has any practical value is something else again, but at least we know.

Or take Waleed Aly and his own reaction. All you need is love, apparently:

“If you are a member of Parliament or a has-been member of Parliament [who do you suppose he means by this?] preaching hate [and who’s doing that?] at a time when what we actually need is more love — you are helping ISIL. They have told us that. [Who is “they” and when did they tell us?] If you are a Muslim leader telling your community they have no place here [and who has told them that?] or basically them saying the same thing — you are helping ISIL.

It’s our fault and not theirs. We may think the killers in Paris are savages but he thinks they were provoked, and if we condemn their actions, we are playing into ISIS’s hands. I don’t think so but that’s not the point. The value in hearing it is that you start to understand who and what we are up against. They do not condemn these attacks in anything more than a perfunctory way, since they see themselves as more sinned against than sinning. You may not think so, and I may not think so, but many of them do think so, and that’s what letting them say their piece allows us to understand.