Connect with us

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki made a startling revelation: major social media platforms take direction from the government in deciding what content to suppress, amplify, or remove.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki last week made a startling revelation from the White House press podium: that the major social media platforms take direction from the government in deciding what content to suppress, amplify, or remove.


On Thursday, Psaki casually made note of the fact that the White House was working in coordination with Facebook, flagging specific “problematic” posts for COVID-19 “misinformation.” She was joined by Vivek Murthy, the U.S. surgeon general, whose office released a 22-page guidance urging platforms to “impose clear consequences for accounts that repeatedly violate platform policies.” Facebook later confirmed it is involved in “private exchanges” with the Biden administration on how to manage COVID-19 information on the platform.

What could have potentially been defended as a well-meaning effort to work with major speech outlets to combat certain inaccuracies about the efficacy of vaccines, however, quickly progressed beyond that. By Friday, the White House was pressuring companies to work together to ban users across multiple platforms. Efforts to ban “misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccine, meanwhile, had evolved into banning “the latest narratives dangerous to public health.”


The problem with all of this, of course, is that the definition of misinformation is constantly changing to meet the needs of the powerful—whether that is the political needs of the party in charge, or the political or financial self-interest of the platforms.

Narrative Control Is The Real Power

Psaki’s revelation, as startling as it was, is clarifying. It remains a contested point in the debate over Big Tech whether these companies constitute “private enterprise” or if they’ve reached the level of indispensable services. But the Biden administration’s flippant acknowledgement that control of what is said on Facebook is central to their policy goals points toward the true status of these companies as essential corridors of speech.


It was for the same reason that Michelle Obama, when she decided that Donald Trump should be banned from social media, didn’t go to Congress to make her case, nor write an op-ed arguing for that position in a national newspaper—she issued a statement to Silicon Valley. Likewise, when congressional Democrats want to silence the influence of right-leaning speech, they threaten the social media companies with regulatory action to urge them to do more.

When a handful of companies take over the public square and dictate who can speak and what they can say—and, by extension, what people can hear—it fundamentally changes the nature of free speech as America has always understood it. But when the government exerts itself upon that power, dictating to compliant companies who can speak, and what can be seen, heard, and said, that, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out recently, is the taproot of fascism.

The Biden administration is telling Facebook which posts it regards as “problematic” so that Facebook can remove them.

This is the union of corporate and state power — one of the classic hallmarks of fascism — that the people who spent 5 years babbling about fascism support. https://t.co/U2Ee3DgXJe

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 15, 2021

That we have reached the point where the White House is proudly admitting to an effort to control who can speak and what can be said on the world’s biggest speech platforms should not be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention over the last year. The COVID-19 outbreak has provided something of a case study of all the ways in which government can outsource the censorship of speech it would otherwise be obligated to protect.

Chokepoints of Public Discourse

In America, social media platforms have taken over the once-democratized public square. Posts on Facebook, information sorting on Google (and by extension, YouTube), apps filtered through Apple and Google, journalists sourcing stories and angles on Twitter, and documentaries and books sold and viewed through Amazon, largely shape the parameters of how Americans take in news, organize community gatherings, access the market, search for information, form opinions, and petition and hear from their government.

At the same time, the federal government has come to understand that co-opting these companies, which effectively control the national narrative, is where real power of modern governance resides. But this is hardly a new discovery.


Centuries ago, the philosopher John Stuart Mill, the chronicler of early America Alexis de Tocqueville, and dystopian novelist George Orwell all foresaw the imminent danger that arose from concentrated control of speech, thought, and opinion, whether through the government, housed in corporations, or enforced by a tyranny of a majority. Modern dictatorships have borne out their thesis. Control of capital, agencies, resources, and weapons is secondary to total control of a national narrative. The latter dictates where the former will go.

Concentrated Economic Power Requires a Response

The power of narrative control, and its attendant ends of power over speech, thought, and access to the marketplace centralized in the Big Tech platforms, will always be irresistible to government, regardless of who is in charge. This is why the concentrated power of these platforms must be so urgently addressed.


Accepting the reality of these companies as the brokers of expression in a free society requires a public policy response. No more is “transparency of terms of service” or advocating for “user rights” a sufficient solution, not when the power of these companies has evolved into a de facto arm of the state.

The power that these companies have is explicitly structural. The control that Google and Facebook, in particular, exert over speech is downstream of their market power. It is only worth the government’s time to successfully co-opt a speech platform if that platform represents a central avenue of expression. If the scale of that market power is broken—that is, if Google filters information for 30 percent of America, instead of its current market share of 90 percent—the co-option of full narrative control is impossible, either by Google or the government.


This is why the right must get serious about a type of antitrust enforcement that can successfully manage this kind of concentrated economic control over speech, information, and market access. Lax enforcement of our antitrust laws has played a direct role in the cartel presently controlling our market for information.


In the Senate, there is now general consensus ranging from progressive Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, to libertarian-leaning Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that the status quo is insufficient, and statutory changes to enforcement must be made. Although the proposed solutions run across a spectrum, Congress must begin actively working toward that end.


But antitrust alone is not enough. How these companies operate must also be considered. While our discourse tends to treat these companies as speech platforms, which they are, they are also much more than that: Facebook and Google are massive digital advertising agencies and considered critical campaign infrastructure for political candidates.


Amazon is the biggest book retailer in the country, Apple and Google control the country’s app market, Facebook and Amazon are the primary access point for millions of small businesses, and newsrooms and other businesses throughout the country conform themselves to terms set by Google and Facebook for good results in search rankings and access to the valuable consumer data that now runs much of the digital economy.


Together, Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook have concentrated not only the market for speech and expression, but represent the primary access points to the modern market and communications economy. How this is dealt with from a public policy perspective—by instituting common carrier laws, reshaping our legal framework for digital advertising, or regulating markets for data—is of vital consideration.

Our Self Government Must Act

In April, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurrence that seemed to anticipate rising policy challenges presented by the union of corporate and state control over speech. “We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms,” he wrote.


In his statement, which suggested that social media platforms be regulated as common carriers, Thomas mused over previous times in which new technologies began to transform the manner in which a free society operated, from the railroad to the telegraph. At each juncture, he noted, it was our self-government that acted to assert the terms, rather than waiting for private companies to decide for us the means of our democratic engagement.


The country again finds itself at such an occasion. Corporate power is merging with state power at massive scale, in ways that ripple beyond speech and into the ability of individuals to access the levers of capitalism, and to openly question or dissent from government narratives without serious consequence. These are the bedrocks on which a pluralistic, diverse, and free society is built. In their absence, there is only a soft descent into tyranny.

Advertisement

Big Tech

Darrell Issa Just Made His First Official Move Against Big Tech For Interfering in The 2020 Election

Published

on

Darrell Issa is on a mission.

He finally got the memo that Republican voters are pissed off about the 2020 election and the interference from Big Tech, and is actually taking steps right now, to hold them accountable.

He just made a bold move that put Big Tech on notice.

The Free Beacon reported that Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) asked Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on Thursday to preserve all internal records related to the companies’ suppression of news coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020, according to copies of the congressional preservation letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The congressman is asking Zuckerberg, Agrawal, Facebook communications director Andy Stone, and former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to “Immediately initiate document preservation for all materials relating to questions, inquiry, conversation, strategy, and response to the media reporting of the Hunter Biden laptop and/or its contents that first appeared in the New York Post on October 14, 2020,” and to notify employees, consultants, and subcontractors who might have access to relevant materials.

MORE NEWS:

Issa said his office is investigating efforts by social media outlets and Democratic operatives to stifle the New York Post bombshell story about Hunter Biden’s corrupt foreign business dealings, which was based on emails found on Hunter’s abandoned laptop.

“This is the scandal that Big Tech and the Democrat industrial complex wish would go away,” Issa told the Free Beacon. “They know what they did, and of course they think they’ve gotten away with it. That’s why it’s critical that we not squander the opportunity for accountability.”

Issa also sent preservation requests to top Biden 2020 campaign aides—including now-White House press secretary Jen Psaki and chief of staff Ron Klain—as well as a group of Biden-supporting former U.S. intelligence officials who claimed the laptop appeared to be part of a “Russian information operation.”

The preservation requests don’t have the legal power of a congressional subpoena, but companies could take a political risk if they refuse to comply—particularly if Republicans gain the House majority next year, giving them control of investigative committees and subpoena authority.

Although there was no evidence in 2020 that the Post’s reporting was inaccurate—and even Hunter Biden didn’t deny that the emails were real—Democrats decried the story as Russian “misinformation,” and Facebook and Twitter took unprecedented steps to prevent users from viewing or sharing it weeks before the election.

This looks to be step one of what Republicans have planned for Big Tech when they take over Congress.

But we can’t allow this to become a “Trey Gowdy” dog and pony show, all talk and no action… we must make sure that they actually hold Big Tech accountable and regulate them.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Donald Trump

President Trump Sues HUGE LIST of Dirty Individuals Over Coordinated Steele Dossier-Russian Collusion Lie

Published

on

By the time it was discovered that the Steele dossier was filled with lies intended to ruin an innocent man and outsider, who dared to run as a Republican for President of the United States, it was too late—the damage had been done.

When it was finally revealed that the Steele dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, the media downplayed the significance of their role and instead continued to push the phony scandal.

The Washington Examiner reports – The dossier’s biggest claim was that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation “did not establish” any such criminal collusion. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz said Russian-born lawyer Igor Danchenko “contradicted the allegations” of a well-developed conspiracy in Steele’s dossier.

Igor Danchenko

Horowitz concluded that Steele’s dossier played a “central and essential” role in the FBI’s effort to obtain wiretap orders against Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and the DOJ watchdog criticized the bureau for at least 17 “significant errors and omissions,” including some related to the FBI’s reliance on Steele’s dossier.

James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan

Earlier this month, Steele said the dossier “was initially produced for a law firm that was connected with the Clinton campaign” and that “it was subsequently shared with the FBI and our own security services.” Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias hired Fusion GPS, which hired Steele, and Steele began to push dossier claims to the FBI in the summer of 2016.

According to court documents, Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous anti-Trump dossier, disclosed information from his Trump-Russia investigation to a longtime Clinton crony because of his position on a State Department advisory board.

Now, President Trump has filed a federal lawsuit in Florida, where he is going after Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele, James Comey, the DNC, Perkins Coie, LLC, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Marc Elias, Andrew McCabe, Nellie, and John Ohr, John Podesta, Fusion GPS, Jake Sullivan, Glenn Simpson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and several other far-left hack activists posing as professionals.

According to the Epoch Times, President Trump says Clinton and ex-British spy Christopher Steele, along with around 30 others, carried out a plot to “weave a false narrative” that Trump was colluding with Russian actors.

“The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources—are so outrageous, subversive, and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison,” the 108-page suit states.

“Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust,” it added. “They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger an unfounded, federal investigation and ignite a media frenzy.”

Steele compiled a dossier based on what he claimed were sources inside Russia. His main source was revealed in 2020 to be Igor Danchenko, who has been investigated by federal agents for possibly being a Russian spy.

“News” articles filled with misinformation that have been debunked are still available with minor corrections in publications like this 2017 Yahoo News article by Natasha Bertrand, “The timeline of Trump’s ties with Russia lines up with allegations of conspiracy and misconduct.”

In her article is an Editor’s note: This article was updated after Nov. 3, 2021, federal indictment accused Igor Danchenko, a Russia expert who contributed to the so-called Steele dossier, of lying to investigators about receiving information from Sergei Millian. Millian repeatedly denied he was a source for any material in the dossier.

The article is filled with misinformation yet remains published and available to the public to read. Here is a small portion of the article:

The dossier alleges serious misconduct and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia’s government. The White House has dismissed the dossier as fiction, and some of the facts and assertions it includes have indeed been proven wrong.

Other allegations in the dossier, however, are still being investigated. According to a recent CNN report, moreover, US intelligence officials have now corroborated some of the dossier’s material. And this corroboration has reportedly led US intelligence officials to regard other information in the dossier as more credible.

Let’s hope President Donald J. Trump’s subsequent lawsuit should be directed at publications like Buzzfeed, who was first to publish the unverified dossier, followed by a slew of dishonest corporate media publications who take their marching orders from the DNC.

This horrific lie about Donald J. Trump that was funded by Democrats, implemented by dirty intelligence agents and high-level officials, defended by dishonest Democrat and RINO lawmakers, and promoted by the dirty corporate media, will go down in history as one of the dirtiest coordinated events in modern political history.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

BREAKING: After Test-Firing ICBM With Up To 15,000 Kilometer Range, N. Korea Says It Is “Fully Ready For A Long-Standing Confrontation With The U.S.”

Published

on

After a thaw in US-North Korea relations facilitated in large part by President Trump, North Korea made a provocative move today and test launched an ICBM with a 15,000 Kilometer range.  After the launch, the North Korean government said it is “fully ready for a long standing-standing with the United States’.

The New York Times Reports

“North Korea on Thursday launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile since 2017, dramatically escalating tensions with the Biden administration at a moment when the world has been gripped by the devastation in Ukraine.

The launch involved what appeared to be North Korea’s most powerful ICBM to date, and marked the end of a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and ICBM tests that the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, announced before embarking on diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump in 2018.

While the new missile did not go far from the coast, its altitude of 3,852 miles — far higher than past tests — appeared to be meant to demonstrate to a weary world that North Korea could flatten the weapon’s trajectory and hit the continental United States with ease.”

Many considered the timing of the launch to be intentional as there is a meeting of some of the top military powers in the world today at the NATO headquarters to discuss the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Trending

Back