Big Tech must be brought to heel over election influencing
By: Miranda Devine
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As the war on conservative voices online reaches fever pitch in the run-up to November’s presidential election, Silicon Valley’s oligarchy finally was called to account Wednesday on Capitol Hill .
“Big Tech is out to get conservatives” Ohio Republican Jim Jordan told the bosses of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. “That’s not a suspicion, that’s not a hunch. That’s a fact.”
Then he laid out a litany of censorship atrocities in a blistering opening statement before the congressional antitrust panel.
They included:
- Google removing conservative Web site Breitbart from its search results.
- Amazon’s video site Twitch suspending President Trump’s account “after he raises concerns about defunding the police.”
- Facebook removing posts from Trump’s re-election campaign.
- Amazon temporarily banning an e-book critical of coronavirus lockdowns written by conservative commentator Alex Berenson.
- Amazon charity site Amazon Smile “won’t let you give to the [pro-life, pro-marriage] Family Research Council . . . but you can give to Planned Parenthood.”
- Facebook admitting to banning pro-life advertisements in 2018 during Ireland’s abortion referendum.
- Former Facebook employees admitting to Gizmodo that the social-media behemoth routinely suppresses conservative views.
- Google and YouTube censoring content that conflicts with World Health Organization recommendations.
“Think about that,” said Jordan. “They can lie for China. They can shill for China. But you say something against them, you get censored.”
Then of course there is Twitter. CEO Jack Dorsey was absent from the hearing, despite an invitation, but that didn’t stop Jordan from excoriating the social-media giant.
He said Twitter “shadow-banned” four conservative members of Congress two years ago: Jordan and fellow Republicans Matt Gaetz, Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows.
“What did Mr. Dorsey tell us? ‘It was just a glitch in our algorithm’ . . .
“We’ve heard that excuse time and time again.”
Then he listed the times in the past several weeks that Twitter has censored President Trump’s tweets by affixing warning labels to them.
For instance, Twitter labeled as “abusive” a Trump tweet last month that read: “There will never be an “Autonomous Zone” in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!”
While Twitter didn’t appear on Capitol Hill, in Israel’s Knesset, a Twitter spokeswoman during a hearing on anti-Semitism Wednesday was grilled about political bias.
She was asked why tweets from President Trump have been censored but not tweets from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , calling for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel.
World leaders indulging in “foreign-policy saber-rattling on military and economic issues are generally not in violation of our Twitter rules,” the spokeswoman said.
By contrast, she said Trump’s tweet violated Twitter’s policies “regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line of that tweet and the risk that it could possibly inspire harm.”
Which is clear as mud.
Jordan also pointed out that Khamenei, the leader of the largest state sponsor of terrorism, last week threatened American citizens in a tweet: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will never forget the martyrdom of Haj Qasem Soleimani” — the Iranian general suspected of carrying out terrorist operations who was killed by a targeted drone strike — “and will definitely strike a reciprocal blow to the US.”
There is no warning label affixed to Khamenei’s tweet.
Other highlights of the Capitol Hill hearing were Jordan ripping into Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet, about Google’s efforts to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
There is ample evidence. A video leaked to Breitbart in 2016, for instance, showed Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page lamenting Trump’s victory at a meeting of Google executives, and vowing not to make the same mistake again.
Brin promised that before the 2020 election Google would be “very vigilant and thinking about all these issues [to see] what we can do to lead to maybe a better quality of governance and decision-making.”
Jordan also cited a 2019 Project Veritas undercover exposé in which Google executives explained how they planned to undermine Trump and influence the 2016 election.
Jordan asked Pichai Wednesday about a 2016 e-mail from the head of multicultural marketing to Google execs referring to a “silent donation” the company had made to the Clinton campaign “and you applauded her work,” the Ohio congressman said.
“Can you assure Americans today you won’t tailor your features to help Joe Biden in the upcoming election?” Jordan asked.
Pichai denied any partisanship and said he and the company “support both campaigns today.” But eventually he offered a “commitment” to fairness.
Gaetz, a Florida Republican, was equally savage with Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg. Gaetz asked why the CEO fired virtual-reality wunderkind and Facebook exec Palmer Luckey, who during the 2016 election cycle had donated $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group.
“When you fire people as a consequence of their politics, do you think that impacts the culture and perhaps empowers some of the content moderators to also treat people worse as a consequence of their politics?”
Zuckerberg denied the charge, but Gaetz replied: “I’ve seen the messages where you have specifically directed Mr. Luckey to make statements regarding his politics to the benefit of your company . . .
“There is a serious question as to whether or not you are giving truthful testimony here or whether you’re lying to Congress.”
Boom.
Maybe the tech giants have reasonable excuses for each incident of censorship and bias, but taken together there is a pattern of conduct which leads to the inescapable conclusion that they are in the business of trying to rig elections.
They must be brought to heel....
Nancy Pelowblow
If there is one person to blame for the shabby, spiteful tone suffusing Congress, it is Nancy Pelosi.
She was at it again this week after her Capitol Hill colleagues’ boorish questioning of Bill Barr, indulging in her favorite sport of fattism.
“He was like a blob,” the House Speaker told MSNBC Tuesday, her face writhing with distaste, after the unflappable attorney general made a meal out of House Dems.
It’s not the first time Pelosi, 80, has insulted an opponent’s weight. A couple of months ago she snarked that the president was “morbidly obese.”
There are plenty of unflattering comments Barr could make about Pelosi’s appearance, not to mention her rectitude and intellect, but he’s too much of a gentleman.
For all her faux gentility, Pelosi sets the tone for her party.
While she constantly lambastes President Trump for indecorous behavior, she has done more than anyone to erode the norms of civility that used to define Congress.
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
“Think about that,” said Jordan. “They can lie for China. They can shill for China. But you say something against them, you get censored.”
Then of course there is Twitter. CEO Jack Dorsey was absent from the hearing, despite an invitation, but that didn’t stop Jordan from excoriating the social-media giant.
He said Twitter “shadow-banned” four conservative members of Congress two years ago: Jordan and fellow Republicans Matt Gaetz, Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows.
“What did Mr. Dorsey tell us? ‘It was just a glitch in our algorithm’ . . .
“We’ve heard that excuse time and time again.”
Then he listed the times in the past several weeks that Twitter has censored President Trump’s tweets by affixing warning labels to them.
For instance, Twitter labeled as “abusive” a Trump tweet last month that read: “There will never be an “Autonomous Zone” in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!”
While Twitter didn’t appear on Capitol Hill, in Israel’s Knesset, a Twitter spokeswoman during a hearing on anti-Semitism Wednesday was grilled about political bias.
She was asked why tweets from President Trump have been censored but not tweets from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , calling for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel.
World leaders indulging in “foreign-policy saber-rattling on military and economic issues are generally not in violation of our Twitter rules,” the spokeswoman said.
By contrast, she said Trump’s tweet violated Twitter’s policies “regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line of that tweet and the risk that it could possibly inspire harm.”
Which is clear as mud.
Jordan also pointed out that Khamenei, the leader of the largest state sponsor of terrorism, last week threatened American citizens in a tweet: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will never forget the martyrdom of Haj Qasem Soleimani” — the Iranian general suspected of carrying out terrorist operations who was killed by a targeted drone strike — “and will definitely strike a reciprocal blow to the US.”
There is no warning label affixed to Khamenei’s tweet.
Other highlights of the Capitol Hill hearing were Jordan ripping into Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet, about Google’s efforts to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
There is ample evidence. A video leaked to Breitbart in 2016, for instance, showed Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page lamenting Trump’s victory at a meeting of Google executives, and vowing not to make the same mistake again. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/9371/big-tech-must-be-brought-to-heel-over-election-influencing
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CDPiDg-FGAZ/?igshid=erjb6omvj5og
Here we had the Congress united, though for different reasons. Democrats feel these companies have become monopolies and Republicans feel they have censored Conservatives and freedom of speech.
There was an article posted on NT yesterday (written by the Huffington Post), which questioned the conclusions of a group of doctors. The article was covering for facebook. Facebook had taken down the doctors claims because Facebook felt they were false. That was the real story!
That’s what happens when these kind of places rely on so called “fact checkers” be their content control gate keepers.... some animals are more equal than others...
What do their employees tell us of the culture there?
As I say, we live in a highly partisan, divided nation. It falls on the reader to beware. Nobody can be trusted to call balls & strikes.
Basically the gop wants to lie online with impunity...
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDOnkzkn_na/?igshid=1avb5v8e94ciu
We leave the lying to the secular progressive left...
The question is Who gets to decide what a lie is?
I say only the reader gets to decide!
Back to alternate facts again? The truth, like facts, are not subjective.
Really?
Like "The President conspiring with Russia?" That was a lie. Yet nobody "decided" to censor it!
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDNfAW8pMns/?igshid=1tcm9a8f78rae
Mueller proved it was not a lie, despite the right wing's attempts to change history. 140+ contacts between Trump campaign and Russia prior to the election. You think that's normal?
NO HE DID NOT!
Maybe you would like to try?
Evidence please...
No COLLUSION.
Mueller stated that NO Americans were involved with Russia meddling.
No spin allowed.
They just can’t let go of the lie...
They DO know a lot that isn't true!
YES HE DID!
No collusion in the Mueller Report-despite assurances from Democrats during the WHOLE investigation that it would show collusion between Trump and Russia.
Another epic fail by Democrats.
Sad little things they are.
If anything the Mueller Report proved there was no collusion and it led to questions of under what pretext an investigation began in the first place
Antifa doesn’t exist, trump colluded with Russia...
Two of the biggest whoppers of the past half decade!
Mueller report, available online for your perusal.
Try a quote instead of you own personal translation.
So why can't anyone prove the existence of an "organization" named "antifa"? I have asked a number of you, and all have failed.
As for Russia, what was Roger Stone found guilty of again??? What did he lie to the FBI about??? How about Flynn?
I have my copy - right by the toilet.
Stone was found guilty of lying, obstruction & "witness tampering." Nothing to do with "Russian collusion." The question was why did the lefty lawyers defy what the AG asked for and attempt to intimidate a new prosecutor into sending a 67 year old man to jail for the far end of the sentencing scale of 9 years? He also should have been granted a mistrial, since one of the jurors was obviously biased, as was the judge IMO. As we know his sentence has been commuted.
How about Flynn?
Flynn was framed pure and simple. And BTW there was nothing wrong with the incoming National Security Advisor speaking with the Russian Ambassador or any other ambassador. There was nothing wrong with what he said and there was no reason for the FBI to interrogate him. He is now under the thumb of a judge who is in defiance of the law. I hope Flynn will be serving in a second Trump term - as FBI director! Poetic Justice!
Like Barr's summary/resume?
"I have my copy - right by the toilet."
I imagine that's where the 'president's' copy of the Constitution is . . .
Do you not remember, just yesterday, when you falsely claimed Antifa didn't exist before Charlottesville and I provided you with numerous references in the media to Antifa before that? And that those newspaper reports identified different branches of Antifa and referenced some of their press releases? Are you reduced to claiming the media is making them up?
Here's one's facebook page
ussia, what was Roger Stone found guilty of again??? What did he lie to the FBI about??? How about Flynn?
Do you not have access to the Mueller report? I and others have cited this quote to you dozens of times by now. What part of this statement is confusing you?
"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
you can't argue facts with someone who doesn't accept them.
I can't read it for you.
but Mueller said no Americans colluded with Russia, you better get used to the truth.
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about it? Please provide exact page in the report where Mueller stated "no Americans colluded with Russia".
this is priceless.
please explain how newspaper stories published in 2016 happened after September 2017.
i look forward to your apology.
Look it up for yourself. I am not your flunkie.
And until you accept facts, we are done here.
How's about STRAIGHT from Mueller's own testimony before Congress--unless you think Mueller LIED to Congress:
Now, if you wish to continue to ignore well known facts, that is all on YOU.
If you think Mueller LIED to Congress. please present some evidence for THAT.
Have you figured out how an incident in 2017 happened before 2016 yet?
Liberal math?
You notice how the term "collusion" is nowhere to be seen in your quote? Did you miss that part?
You do understand that in English, the words "collusion" and "conspiracy" have different meanings, right?
Oh, we have another parser of words.
There was no collusion, no conspiracy.
Dream on.
Straight from Mueller's own lips--as you asked for and delivered as asked.
Don't try to change things up now!
You do understand that they are 2 entirely separate words, correct? That is why Mueller specified "conspiracy", not "collusion". Your own quote states: "We did not address collusion". In English, words have meanings, using the wrong word changes the meaning.
Now, you are claiming that Mueller stated no "COLLUSION", are you going to provide that quote, or admit you made a false statement?
I understand you were proven wrong and now wish to switch things around
That is the progressive way!
I am trying to switch things around by holding you to your statement? I am not the one trying to redefine words, so once again I am asking you to support your claim that Mueller stated no "COLLUSION".
4.1.23 Texan1211 replied to Ozzwald @ 4.1.14
Remember?
What was it that Mueller said he had convincing overwhelming conclusive evidence about and filed charges regarding?
Why ask me? According to Texan1211, he said there was no "collusion", yet Texan1211 refuses to show where Mueller said it.
I’m simply asking what if anything Mueller found that he filed charges about or encouraged others to charge Trump or his campaign with. That’s all.
Besides the 10 counts of obstruction of justice? Your question is off topic, and not worth the time.
There were no “counts” of obstruction. Another 2017 came before 2016 argument from you.
Really. Did he file charges on them or refer them to a DA or a grand jury or did he make NO conclusions?
That's not what you asked. And you are correct, he made NO conclusions. Which he has stated multiple times.
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote.
Like I said, no conclusions, he left the conclusions ( as far as Trump ) up to Congress. Remember, DOJ had a policy in place preventing him from indicting Trump.
On the democrat side, they scored a hit with internal emails they obtained involving former Chief Financial Officer David Ebersman discussing Facebook's potential acquisition of Instagram in 2012: Zuckerberg wrote that his motivation for acquiring Instagram was a “combination” between goals Ebersman had previously listed to “neutralize a potential competitor” and to “integrate their products with ours in order to improve our service.”
On the other side Republicans hammered away at the biased censorship with Rep Jim Jordan offering egregious examples.
It would have been good if the government had stopped Facebook from buying Instagram for anti trust reasons.
The government has been generous to Facebook and for a while they even used Facebook.
"Edward Snowden, the former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor whose work with the National Security Agency (NSA) provided him access to extremely classified U.S. intelligence, shocked the world when he exposed sensitive details about the Obama administration's warrantless wiretapping of private communications between innumerable U.S. citizens with no ties to terrorism."
Some conservatives don't really want free speech. Last month Parler banned a bunch of lefties there within 24 hours of them joining up. They only want their speech free - free of fact checking, free of criticism, free to spew hatred... If they can't follow the terms of service that everyone else seems to follow without issue then they deserve whatever they get. That said there is a lot to dislike about big tech data scraping policies. I'd pay Facebook $9.99 a month if they didn't advertise or sell my data.
Projection
free to spew hatred.
[deleted]
I'd pay Facebook $9.99 a month if they didn't advertise or sell my data.
Which is supposedly worse than denying speech?
It's ugly and unnecessary, but I known for a long time populist partisans can't help themselves.
You mean you have known?
.”..there is a hate fest going on at this moment celebrating the death of Herman Cain“.
there was and it was blatant and an outrage. Herman Cain was a great American!
Big Tech Lies Matter – A.F. Branco Cartoon
Posted by: A.F. Branco in Political Cartoons July 30, 2020 0
And now Facebook and Twitter are censoring the Trump campaign for putting part of his Fox News Fox & Friends interview on their format in ads.