Conspiracy news & views from all angles, up-to-the-minute and uncensored
Big Tech
“The moon moves around the Earth, and it takes a month to do that,” she said. “Sometimes, as the Earth is turning you see the moon at nighttime during that course of orbit around the Earth, and …
Read More
Big Tech censorship has kicked into high gear just in time for the 2024 elections.
Google-owned YouTube, Amazon, TikTok, Meta-owned Facebook, Microsoft-owned LinkedIn and X all cracked down on free speech — especially election-related content — during the month of September. X suspiciously targeted a former President Donald Trump-affiliated account just before the presidential debate, while Facebook and Amazon Alexa displayed explicit pro-Vice President Kamala Harris bias. YouTube was busy censoring content about Christian persecution and Jan. 6, while LinkedIn continued to enforce COVID-19 groupthink. And over at TikTok, the Communist Chinese government-tied app dubiously removed an exposé about Orwellian digital IDs.
Below are several of the worst examples of Big Tech censorship found in MRC Free Speech America’s exclusive CensorTrack database from the month of September.
1) Amazon Alexa urges users to vote for Harris, not Trump. Multiple X users postedvideos of themselves asking Amazon’s virtual assistant Alexa the reasons they should vote for Trump. “I cannot provide responses that endorse any political party or its leader,” Alexa responded, according to Fox News Digital. When Fox News Digital tested it an additional time, Alexa responded, saying, “I cannot promote content that supports a certain political party or a specific politician. Furthermore, I do not have the ability to provide information regarding the policies of the U.S. government. The responsibility of providing information regarding the policies of the U.S. government lies with the government itself.”
The Amazon assistant did, however, providereasons to vote for Vice President and Democrat nominee for president Harris, including “that she is a female of color with a comprehensive plan to address racial injustice and inequality throughout the country” and “promises a tough-on-crime approach to battling the violent crime wave that has swept the nation in recent years.”
Of course, Amazon, as Big Tech companies so often do, claimed to Fox News Digital that “[t]his was an error that was quickly fixed.”
2) X imposes pre-debate censorship. Ahead of the first presidential debate between former Trump and Harris, Trump War Room, the “official War Room account of the 2024 Trump campaign,” shared a video of Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) ripping the Biden-Harris administration for America’s inflation crisis. Trump War Room captioned the post, “@ByronDonalds: ‘Inflation when Donald Trump left office was 1.4% year-over-year… When Joe Biden and Kamala Harris came into office, many states were already back to work… and when they wanted to his ‘American Rescue Plan,’ which she co-signed, we told them on Capitol Hill, you’re going to create a labor shortage, which is going to create inflation.’” In response, X initially slapped an interstitial over the video saying, “Content warning: Adult Content. X labeled this post as containing Adult Content.” Several other posts were similarly labeled, including Trump War Room’s video post of a BBC News clip showing voters criticizing Harris. “Former Pennsylvania steel worker: ‘I would believe Donald Trump. I don’t believe Harris. She’s been there three and a half years and hasn’t done nothing,’” Trump War Room wrote in the post.
3) Facebook runs interference for pro-abortion propaganda. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), challenged ABC News’s presidential debate moderators who contradicted Republican presidential candidate Trump’s accusation that there are states that legally allow infanticide. Perkins’s Facebook post had an FRC map showing 15 states that have no legal protections for babies born alive after an attempted abortion. Facebook initially hid the map behind an interstitial, wrongly asserting, “False information. Checked by independent fact-checkers.” The interstitial was later removed, but the warning label remained, linking to leftist fact-checker PolitiFact’s claim, “No legal protections for ‘born alive’ babies in some states? Experts say that’s wrong.” Users were also forced to click to confirm that they wished to share the post.
4) TikTok removes video exposing digital ID program for unspecified reasons. Evita Duffy-Alfonso, Bongino Report’s Early Edition with Evitahost, posted a clip of her Sept. 4 show on TikTok, “The new world order is closing in on us fast. Kenya’s multi-billion dollar digital ID system intends to digitize citizen’s biometric data.” It included a clip of Kenya’s Interior and National Administration cabinet secretary Kithure Kindiki explaining the “automated biometric identification system, which … involves the iris, fingerprints as well as facial recognition.” She subsequently shared a screenshot on X showing TikTok removed the clip for allegedly violating “our Community Guidelines.”
5) YouTube censors description of Christian persecution. Radio talk show host Michael Savage said in a live broadcast on X and Facebook that YouTube suspended him for a week after he shared an eight-year-old compilation video. One of his listeners had compiled clips of Savage discussing Christmas, the genocide of Christians by Muslims in the Middle East and efforts to help persecuted Christians. YouTube’s removal notice described some of the video’s content as “violent or graphic.” While the video wasn’t removed, YouTube issued a strike and a one-week suspension against Savage’s account.
6) X censors post about reports of illegal migrants eating pets. The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project posted on its X account, “We have obtained an Aug. 28 police report from Springfield, Ohio where a caller alleged that their cat was stolen and chopped up. We have not verified any of the allegations and are disclosing the source material only due to immense public interest.” The post also showed a screenshot of a police report page. X imposed an interstitial filter over the video requiring users to click through the warning: “Content warning: Adult Content. X labeled this post as containing Adult Content.”
7) Microsoft’s LinkedIn still enforces COVID-19 dogma. Dr. Mary Talley Bowden MD, a critic of government and leftist COVID-19 narratives, stated that LinkedIn removed a post from her account as “misinformation.” She said in her post the following: “Unexplained rashes, serious severe pain, fatigue, POTS, neurological tinnitus, Bell’s palsy, stroke,… .” In a follow up X post, she completed the thought she began in the LinkedIn post, “… stroke, myocarditis… yet these [COVID-19] shots are still on the market.”
8) YouTube Is still obsessed with January 6. The Babylon Bee posted a trailer for its January 6 mockumentary. YouTube imposed a fact-checking label linking to the January 6 Wikipedia page, saying, “On January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., was attacked by a mob of supporters of then–U.S. President Donald Trump in an attempted self-coup d’état two months after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.” The Babylon Bee is a member of MRC’s Free Speech Alliance.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
Read More
The Deep State is a network of unelected officials, powerful institutions, and corporate elites that operate beyond democratic control. It involves bureaucratic, military and intelligence actors who shape national and global policies […]
Read More
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell sounded the alarm over Google’s latest censorship scheme and accused the tech giant of “deliberately” manipulating its algorithms to sway the election.
Bozell joined Thursday’s episode of Fox Business’s Varney & Co. to detail a new MRC study exposing Google for actively boosting leftist media outlets—most of which are notoriously hostile towards the right—in search results related to the 2024 election. The findings also show Google elevated the campaign website of Vice President Kamala Harris and buried former President Donald Trump’s.
“Google is deliberately playing with the algorithms to deliberately change the electoral count. If that isn’t tampering with democracy, I just don’t know what is,” Bozell told host Stuart Varney, summarizing the MRC findings.
“Google is deliberately playing with the algorithms to deliberately change the electoral count. If that isn’t tampering with democracy, I don’t know what is.”
MRC’s @BrentBozell eviscerates Google’s election interference with @Varneyco on @FoxBusiness pic.twitter.com/FJMkMz8YdY
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 26, 2024
Read the Damning Study: Google Up to Same Tricks? Search Giant Pushes Wildly Biased News Above Trump Website
The MRC report showed that Google consistently yielded results from leftist outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico when users searched for “donald trump presidential race 2024.” Unsurprisingly, the same leftist outlets dominated search results when the query was changed to “kamala harris presidential race 2024.”
Bozell suggested that Google’s boosting of Harris’s website, and leftist outlets that favor the Democratic Party nominee, may amount to illegal campaign contributions that the government should look into.
“If you want to do something to affect the campaign, make a political contribution within the limits of the law. If this were a political contribution, it would be literally in the billions of dollars of a contribution, which would make it illegal,” Bozell emphasized during the Fox Business interview.
When Varney asked how Americans can counter the “left-wing” push on platforms like Google, Bozell offered a blunt solution: “You’re only going to do that when the government intercedes on this.”
Google, which has earned a notorious reputation for ignoring MRC’s repeated requests for comments and explanations, attempted to save face by dismissing the study’s findings in remarks to Fox Business.
ICYMI: Mum! Google Fails to Respond to Bozell’s Challenge, Does Not Refute Election Interference
“Both campaign websites consistently appear at the top of Search for relevant and common search queries,” the tech giant claimed, failing to address why leftist outlets are promoted.
The tech giant also dismissed the report as based on a “single rare search term on a single day several weeks ago.” This line of defense conveniently ignored the numerous MRC studies that busted the tech giant meddling in U.S. elections, dating back to 2008.
Related: 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
Read More
A recent study has revealed that a surprising number of young people in France are embracing the Flat Earth theory. The findings have raised concerns about the role of social media platforms like …
Read More
 |
(NaturalNews) With Apple releasing its latest generation of iPhones this week, it’s important to keep in mind that the wireless technology in cell phones,… |
Responding to rising mpox cases in Africa, the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on Aug. 14. Social media posts subsequently repeated a plethora of false or baseless claims, including that COVID-19 vaccines cause the viral disease or that the current outbreak is part of a global conspiracy.
The post Posts Sharing Mpox Misinformation Recycle Claims from Prior Viral Outbreaks appeared first on FactCheck.org.
Read More
In a letter dated August 26, Meta CEO and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg expressed regret to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for succumbing to White House pressure to delete posts and comments that displeased the Democratic administration. Zuckerberg admitted he had unwisely yielded to political pressure by removing tweets that criticized Biden’s response to the COVID epidemic. He may have also withheld other statements from public view to avoid offending the government.
But he was wrong, Zuckerberg said, to practice such censorship. Henceforth, he and his team would not interfere with Facebook content because of their ideological preferences or because they were knuckling under to political officials.
Despite Zuckerberg’s reassurances to Jim Jordan, it appears that the old double standard persists among Zuckerberg’s employees.
Zuckerberg seemed to suggest that, in his professional role, he would move away from being a left-wing Democratic Party activist. Instead, his letter implied that he was aligning more with Elon Musk by allowing a wider range of political views on his platform.
This may not reflect Zuckerberg’s true intentions, however. Chronicles, a magazine with which I’m associated, has evidence that Zuckerberg might be reverting to his old ways.
On September 2, our magazine’s executive editor attempted to post on Facebook a commentary titled “A Fighting Chance for Normalcy” by our longtime columnist Tom Piatak. While this is a common practice, something unexpected and troubling occurred: The content was deleted, and we were reprimanded for attempting to post “misleading content.”
Although no one is claiming that Piatak’s exhortation to vote for the Trump-Vance ticket exemplifies objective science, it is by no means more biased than what passes for news interpretation on CNN, MSNBC, and network television. Piatak offers his political opinions and cites reasons for why he thinks those opinions are sound. He contends that as late as the recent past, candidates for national office who held the views of Trump and Vance would not have been seen as “weirdos” or “extremists.” Most Americans probably would have agreed with their views.
Piatak points to the alarm generated by these candidates as evidence of where our power elites have been pushing the United States. At least half the country — including me — would agree with Piatak’s picture of our political radicalization, and there is at least some justification for holding his understanding of the present age.
It’s hard to believe that other political statements approved by Zuckerberg’s censors are more “objective.” Most of the posts I’ve seen on Facebook are partisan opinions or emotional outbursts presented as coherent thoughts. For example, some comments about a recent anti-Israeli, pro-Hamas demonstration on an American campus were deemed acceptable by Facebook.
As the New York Post points out, these posts are often filled with anti-Semitic remarks and innuendos. It seems that because the creators of these posts are politically left-leaning, Facebook’s censors did not remove them. Despite Zuckerberg’s reassurances to Jim Jordan on August 26, it appears that the old double standard persists among Zuckerberg’s employees.
Fortunately, we at Chronicles are not dependent on Zuckerberg’s operation. We rely much more heavily on distributing our writings on X (formerly Twitter), which, unlike Facebook and to the dismay of the corporate media, permits open discussion. We have transferred more and more of our writings to that honest website, especially after Intellectual Takeout, a web publication with which we were long associated, was removed from Facebook for revealing government lies about COVID.
Intellectual Takeout lost lots of its Facebook readers because of Zuckerberg’s servile relationship with the Democratic Party and because of his now-admitted decision to censor those who didn’t follow the White House party line. After our recent experience with Facebook’s censorship, we’re delighted not to have to rely too heavily on this compromised website for publicizing our work.
Chronicles’ situation has not sparked noticeable concern among larger right-leaning enterprises, despite our attempts to inform them. We are a small publication compared to National Review, the Wall Street Journal, or our friends here at Blaze Media. Zuckerberg may have chosen to target smaller publications while leaving the larger ones untouched. However, I suspect a more significant shift may be underway. It seems that Zuckerberg or his employees are moving from censoring small conservative magazines to targeting larger, more widely read publications. If they can arbitrarily remove politically disagreeable content from smaller outlets, they might extend this practice to bigger ones.
To counter this potential strategy, we need to highlight Facebook’s censorship before it spreads further.
Read More
Note: Mamamia does not endorse or promote any of Pete Evans’ health opinions. If you have any health concerns, please visit your doctor.”Some people would like me to disappear, no doubt. And I’ll just …
Read More