who hoped the internet would be a great leveller 25 years ago will be
dumbfounded by how it looks today. Big Tech has seized the role of policing
opinion, as the enforcer of Upper Normie, high-status opinion – and is
censoring speech on an industrial scale.
last year, as the presidential election campaign neared its
conclusion, and as Trump’s tweets began to be embroidered with
nanny-ish health warnings, the New York Post published
a sparse factual story detailing Hunter Biden’s business dealings.
It implicated the Biden family, and, by inference, then presidential
candidate Joe Biden in Chinese business deals. Twitter then blocked
distribution of the story on its own platform on the grounds that it
violated a policy on hacked materials. Which always seemed a
convenient excuse not to damage Biden’s electoral chances. And so it
proved, with the FBI now one of several agencies belatedly investigating Biden Jr.
earlier this year, Twitter banned the outgoing president. And in the orgy
of bloodletting that followed, Twitter refuge Parler found itself
entirely homeless – kicked off Amazon’s hosting infrastructure, and
banished from the mobile app stores run by Google and Apple. Parler
already barred users who crossed the line into incitement – but not
zealously enough to please Amazon, whose decision was final.
last week Facebook kicked the Socialist Workers Party off its site. It
is proof that today it is the private sector, especially dominant
technology companies with a zealously woke workforce, who have
emerged with the power to control not merely what is said, but who
gets to speak.
did we get here?
is actually a myth that the internet was ever a pirate utopia, free
from government control. This myth stems in part from John Perry
Barlow’s stoner cyber manifesto, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,
written at that conclave of outlaws, the World Economic Forum, in
with anti-democratic prejudices and implicit inter-generational
conflict (‘digital natives’ would inherit the earth, and anyone out of
their teens was damned), Barlow’s declaration nevertheless suited
Silicon Valley. First, because he vowed that the internet was ‘immune
to [government] sovereignty’. And second, because it also indulged a
fantasy of techno utopians, who would not have to engage in that messy
politics business of building coalitions, of reaching out and
persuading people, to get things done.
tech exceptionalism was subsequently enshrined in part of the US
Telecommunications Act (1996), known as the Communications Decency
Act, especially its infamous Section 230. This was written as a
response to a lawsuit brought by Wolf of Wall Street firm
Stratton Oakmont against an internet service provider for hosting a
forum in which people posted negative comments about Stratton
Oakmont. The court ruled against the ISP.
230 militated against such vexatious litigation. It read, ‘No provider
or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider’. This has subsequently been lauded as
the ’26 words that created the internet’. Courts have subsequently
broadened the interpretation, so much so, in fact, that criminal
activities, such as inducement, now carry a pass, in direct contradiction of the first line of the
American criminal code, which makes an accomplice (someone who ‘aids,
abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission’) a
principal in the crime. It was surely never the intent of Congress to
make one industrial sector completely immune from criminal law. From a
sensible starting position, in which common law could define secondary
liabilities, we’ve gone to complete immunity – to do as you please.
in common with parallel internet legislation in the early 1990s, S230
contained an implicit bargain common to this first era of protections
– stay neutral or face consequences. That bargain has surely been
broken. The long-standing complaints of American conservatives that
platforms are biased against them are now hard to dispute. After all,
such platforms bend to the slightest quiver of censoriousness from
employees who identify as ‘progressive’.
to disarm such concerns, the giant platforms want their interventions
to appear to be ‘even-handed’, or ‘fair’. But this misses the point.
It isn’t that we want them to be even-handed when they do intervene or
censor. We simply don’t want them to punish political speech at all.
Critics rightly fume that Big Tech companies turn a blind eye when it
suits them, to harmful material consumed by vulnerable or underage
groups – or plainly illegal activity – and over-compensate with
‘cleaning up’ political speech instead.
those of us who spent the intervening decades fretting about
government suppression of speech – with some justification, as Lord
Leveson and his ‘dab of statute’ came close to ending 300 years of a free press in Britain – it
may be time to take stock. The fact is that it is many years since
the government even attempted to suppress political writing. The
D-notice system that once imprisoned journalists who disclosed
national-security matters was made voluntary almost 30 years ago. I
should know, as after my former publication published parts of the Snowden files that
the Guardian had promised not to, we received a
visit from the retired one-star general who heads the D-notice
committee. It was a clubbable visit, and he even bought the staff
drinks in the pub. In a world of Pastebin, injunctions don’t work.
a temptation to treat every attempt at revisiting the 1990s bargain
between technology companies and the law as a hand grenade thrown into
the bunker of free speech. Defenders of free speech are wise
to be wary of clumsy and censorious measures being smuggled in as the
1990s bargain is revisited. But the harms created by that now obsolete
bargain remain real, and a refusal to engage simply guarantees an
endless conveyor belt of earnest but very flawed draft legislation.
Trump wanted to tear the whole house down – scrapping S230 altogether
– but the Department of Justice last year signaled a sensible path out of the morass by
narrowly defining the harms, and affirming the responsibilities not to
censor arbitrarily. Supporters of free speech should do the
unthinkable, and engage.
must have all the facts and evidence from Dr. Epstein with
responses from Google as we consider changes to address these
serious issues." From all the evidence, it appears Silicon Valley's censoring
of information is likely weakening our democracy.
of Congress will continue to send the Silicon Valley CEOs
demand letters and hold hearings to try to make citizens look like
they're "doing something" about the censorship,
but users seem to be finally doing something themselves. According
to tech news site C/NET:
the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It
is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free
newsletter here. Support my sponsor - Turbo Force - a supercharged
boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need
your financial support here.
6, 2020Pao, known for being an early proponent of the
"woke" politics of feminism and racial grievance that now
characterize every Silicon Valley company,
made the shocking admission in a tweet yesterday evening.. The
former CEO, who previously worked for venture capital firm Kleiner
Perkins, said Maxwell was invited to a party at the company, and
that she was aware of her reputation.
a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and openly
supported her, but he nonetheless was outraged that a giant Silicon Valley company
was putting their finger on the scale ...
Cruz addressed how a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires
and giant corporations can spend millions or even billions of
dollars to "massively affect" the outcome of elections. Dr. Epstein corrected
Senator Cruz, telling him that if Mark Zuckerberg chooses to send
out a "Go Vote" message to Democrats on election day in 2020 ...
biggest interference threat in the 2020 election is not Russia, it's Silicon Valley.
This should come as no surprise after a leaked video revealed how
horrified Google execs were over Donald Trump's 2016 win. On his
Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck interviews the
researcher who intends to expose the faceless plot to thwart a
who was known for his interest in obtaining blackmail through the
sexual abuse of the underaged girls he exploited, also claimed to
have "damaging information" on prominent...
a chilling interview with Fox News' Tucker Carlson, Ph.D.
psychologist Robert Epstein reported
that Google's search engine has a "very substantial pro-liberal
bias" and could swing 15 ...
McCain said Monday that Twitter's move to purge thousands of
accounts only heightened concerns about censorship and
the power held by Silicon Valley.
During a segment of ABC's "The View," McCain addressed the news that
President Donald Trump — along with a number of other accounts — had
been banned from Twitter.
GPS, the left alt media, Silicon Valley,
the MSM all tried to tie in President Trump to the dirty, nefarious,
evil life style of Epstein and
his orbit that included Global Royalty, Chinese Businessmen, Global
politicians, filthy Democrats, RINOs Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
commentator Ann Coulter says that sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein had
a "state sponsor" backing him and that his operation was a way to
blackmail powerful men. During an appearance on 790 KABC, Coulter
suggested that Epstein is
merely the front man for a far more powerful network.
social media platform Parler is gaining favor among political
conservatives, who claim their voices are being stifled by the Silicon Valley giants.
(Photo: Olivier Douliery/Agence France ...
Hannity has slammed Silicon Valley's censorship of
conservatives as 'dangerous and chilling.' The Fox News host last
night drew parallels between Big Tech's ban on Donald Trump and the
way it ...
12, 2021In other words, liberals like Goldberg are
concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers
might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly
happy as long as it is their ...
7, 2020"Big tech censorship is,
I think, the single greatest threat to free speech and democracy in
the country today," Cruz said. "There are a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires
who have amassed more power than ever seen before over information,
over the public square, over discourse, and big tech is is brazen,
[and] is shamelessly ...
most prolific activism demanding more Silicon Valley censorship is
found in the nation's largest news outlets: the media reporters of
CNN, the "disinformation" unit of NBC News, and especially the tech
reporters of The New York Times. That is where the most aggressive
and sustained pro-internet-censorship campaigns
Prime Minister of Britain, Boris Johnson, was reportedly alarmed at Silicon Valley censorship even
before Trump was permanently removed from Twitter and other
platforms. In November, the Daily Mail quoted a senior government
source who said the Prime Minister was considering new laws against
tech censorship following
Twitter's censoring ...
Ted Cruz described Big Tech's political censorship as
"the single greatest threat to free speech and democracy" in
America. The Texas Republican noted that "a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires"
are "shamelessly silencing and censoring conservatives."
court of censorship like
the Inquisition to manage public opinion: this is really serious,"
he added. Please listen to the Mexican President's warnings about Silicon Valley censorship when
asked about the Trump ban.
Silicon Valley and
the left-leaning mainstream media like to brush off conservative
claims of bias online, asserting that conservatives only have
"anecdotal" evidence to back them up.
As Silicon Valley censorship radically
escalated over the past several months — banning pre-election
reporting by The New York Post about the Biden family, denouncing
and deleting multiple posts from the US President and then
terminating his access altogether, mass-removal of right-wing
accounts — so many people migrated to Parler that it ...
7, 2019White House drafting executive order to tackle Silicon Valley's alleged
anti-conservative bias By MARGARET HARDING MCGILL and DANIEL LIPPMAN
08/07/2019 03:07 PM EDT
Texas - Amidst Congressional Democrats' attempts to undo the results
of the 2016 election, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the
Subcommittee on The Constitution, on Sunday appeared on Fox News'
'Sunday Morning Futures' with Maria Bartiromo where he discussed his
ongoing concerns about Big Tech's unchecked influence in past
elections, and what that means for 2020 and beyond.
Zakharova, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, has repeatedly
spotlighted the issue of Silicon Valley's social
In particular, she has pointed out the political bias ...
"iconic" Haiti Tech Summit was the pilot launch. The company was
projecting 54 tech summits in 2020, to be held virtually and "across
all major hubs globally". Alongside Dorsey at the 2018 Haiti Tech
summit were representatives from other Silicon Valley giants
— Google, Facebook and YouTube.
of Silicon Valley censorship for
years heard the same refrain: tech platforms like Facebook, Google
and Twitter are private corporations and can host or ban whoever
they want. If you don't like what they are doing, the solution is
not to complain or to regulate them.
Reid Hoffman, who previously helped convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein boost
his public image after being jailed for child sex crimes, has just
poured $1.5 million into Joe Biden's campaign. Silicon Valley tycoon
Hoffman is now pumping cash into the super PAC supporting former
Vice President Biden's candidacy.
Silicon Valley's largest
digital platforms have already proven time and again that they are
fully ready to bow to the whims of censorship whims
of outside powers while chasing new cash flows.
11, 2020In his research of Google's bias during the 2016
presidential election cycle, Dr. Robert Epstein found
that Google's manipulation of search results helped shift between
2.6 and 10.4 million votes ...