On the tech giants in Joe Biden’s America

Texas passes SB12, much to the consternation of liberals who want to continue to silence conservatives on social media

Texas moves to protect conservatives from tech giant viewpoint discrimination

The Texas Public Policy Action informs us of Texas SB 12, which would stop companies like Facebook and Twitter from blocking posts based on a political viewpoint.

Austin-CapitalSB 12 would prevent social media platforms with more than 100 million users in a calendar month from censoring a person’s viewpoint expressed in a social media post but would not prohibit the censoring of content that is prohibited, such as violent or overtly sexual content or in cases where federal law specifically allows websites and services to censor speech. This applies to Texas residents, users who do business in Texas and users who receive or share content on a social media platform in Texas.

SB 12 would require social media platforms to publicly disclose on their website and in a way easily accessible to the public, accurate information regarding its content management, data management, and business practices, including specific information regarding how they use, place, and target content and services.

Requires social media platforms to publish an acceptable use policy informing users of acceptable content, explaining the steps the social media platform will take to ensure content complies with the policy, and explains the means by which users can notify the platform of content that potentially violates the policy.

Requires social media platforms to publish a quarterly transparency report of the number of times they were alerted to illegal content or activity and their response. Provides process by which users can file complaint about content being removed and the responsibilities of the platform in rectifying the complaint.

The Attorney General may sue a social media platform for violating these terms.

(Read why Texas Public Policy Action supports SB12 at Texas Public Policy Action)

Reason.com points to possible flaws of Texas SB12 — all based on federalism

In their review of Texas SB12, Reason.com points out some flaws in Texas SB12:

Political bias on social media is one of the biggest issues animating the political right these days, and thus many conservatives talk about doing something to prevent “Big Tech” censorship. Several Republican-controlled states are considering passing legislation designed to accomplish just that.

The Texas Senate, for instance, is poised to approve SB12, which ostensibly prohibits social media companies from restricting their users’ speech.

“We need to recognize in Texas, maybe particularly in Texas, we see that the First Amendment is under assault by the social media companies and that is not going to be tolerated in Texas,” said Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in support of the bill.

The First Amendment is not under assault by social media companies. On the contrary, the First Amendment defends the free speech rights of private entities—like social media companies—against restrictive government action, like this bill. It would be more accurate to say that the First Amendment is under assault by the Texas legislature. A private company deciding what kind of speech it allows on its platform is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment protects from government interference.

If that were not enough, the bill has two massive flaws, one of which might render it entirely pointless.

First, the bill defines its terms very broadly: It would prohibit any large social media company (more than 100 million monthly users) from restricting content because of the expressed viewpoint. “An interactive computer service may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person,” the bill reads.

Practically speaking, this could prohibit Facebook and Twitter from taking action against content that is harmful, abusive, or spammy. Facebook’s News Feed algorithm makes choices about what kind of content to prioritize, and the platform occasionally opts to limit the reach of some posts—conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, or COVID-19, for instance. The bill would appear to interfere with the day-to-day runnings of the site in very basic ways. It could even force social media sites to take away moderation options from users.

“YouTube and Facebook allow page managers to remove content posted on their community pages,” noted Steve DelBianco, president of the trade association NetChoice, in his comments about the bill. “This empowers content creators to curate their pages to suit community interests. However, platforms and websites might remove this capability, since it invites expensive litigation under SB 12.”

If that weren’t good enough reason to oppose the bill, it also contains a section that appears to render the entire thing obsolete: “This chapter does not prohibit an interactive computer service from censoring expression that the interactive computer service is specifically authorized to censor by federal law.”

Under a federal law known as Section 230, social media companies cannot be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” In other words, federal law already gives social media companies every right to restrict users’ content, and Texas’ bill—as written—bows to federal law.

(Read more at Reason.com)

Maybe it is time for states to start asserting their preeminence over the federal government. It was the states that created the federal government (not the other way around).

With all due deference to President Lincoln, we in Texas don’t like running a liberal ship into the ground — and that is just what New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. seem intent on doing. Therefore, we conservative states need to chart another course and dare the demented people up North to try to hold us down.

Mike Lindell touts a new social media platform that will handle over a billion users

The Epoch Times reports that Mike Lindell, CEO and founder of MyPillow, has announced the formation of a social media platform.


The forthcoming social media website from MyPillow’s Mike Lindell will be able to handle more than a billion users, Lindell said this week.

“I believe it will handle upwards of a billion. If it doesn’t, we will get to that capacity. I don’t think that’s exaggerated, by any means,” Lindell told The Epoch Times.

“It’s going to be the safest, secure platform. I built it expecting to be attacked.”

The platform, dubbed Frank, has a landing page but isn’t operational yet.

Lindell told The Epoch Times’ affiliate NTD on March 11 that the website would be up and running within two weeks.

The current plan is to launch as soon as April 5, but no later than April 12.

“The only reason for the delay is, I actually added six more servers in another location. I really want redundancy, so I’ve got three different U.S. locations and another hidden one. So I’ve got—if anybody went out there to physically damage my stuff, I wanted a fourth location, so that was very important to me,” Lindell told The Epoch Times.

Frank is described as a mix of YouTube and Twitter. The core idea is free speech, according to Lindell, who was banned by Twitter in January for violations of the platform’s Civic Integrity Policy and has said he’s been harmed by actions from Google.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

This allows us the opportunity to use our feet to vote rather than using the change of law

Just like when I moved to Parler, I will move to both Mike Lindell’s and President Trump’s new platforms. However, I think that (instead of using these platforms as supplements to Facebook and Twitter — the latter of which cut my followership by thousands before I quit) I will use these primarily.

Just to mock Facebook and Instagram, here is the Trump interview those platforms banned in Joe Biden’s America

Here is the video banned by Instagram and Facebook

The following video is available in its entirety on Rumble.

Not only does the NYT buy ink by the barrel, they buy politicians

Corporate media legislation is “bait and switch to strangle conservative outlets”

Breitbart quotes Ken Blackwell as he outlines how the corporate media has worked with Democrat leaders to craft legislation that will drive out the competition.

Former Ohio state treasurer and secretary of state Ken Blackwell described a bill backed by corporate media giants currently making its way through Congress as “a bait-and-switch attempt that claims to help conservative news sources but would instead purge them from the marketplace of ideas.”

Blackwell took aim at the proposed legislation, known as the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act of 2019 (JCPA), in an op-ed in the American Thinker.

As Breitbart News’s Allum Bokhari reported, the JCPA is deceptively titled because instead of promoting “competition,” the bill in its current form would “cement the advantage of the establishment and corporate media at the expense of its competitors” by giving “Big Media companies a special exemption from antitrust law, allowing them to form a cartel that would, under normal circumstances, be illegal to create.”

“Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the bigger media companies from excluding smaller companies from the cartel,” Bokhari added. “If passed, there would be nothing to stop the formation of a cartel that includes CNN, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other big companies, while excluding smaller competitors in the independent media — not to mention local newspapers. Such a cartel would secure favorable rates for the former while leaving the latter in the dust.”

Blackwell’s op-ed offers similar criticism of the bill. He explains that it would not only grant big media companies an exemption from federal antitrust laws, but it would also allow them to “operate in a coordinated fashion to negotiate prices that social media companies like Facebook would have to pay them to carry their content. It would ensure that these tech billionaires would have to direct some of their riches into content providers.”

“But that’s a Big Boys’ game, where the major players could decide whom to let into their club. Smaller outlets would be left out in the cold, and the market would suffer,” Blackwell writes.

(Read three central paragraphs of Blackwell quote at Breitbart)

America needs to remain a country where the little guy can thrive

Oddly, under the Democrat socialist politicians, America is becoming a nation of Nazi-eque melding of big business and government.

Free speech, online forums (especially Twitter), and Biden’s America

California man sues Twitter, AOC over ‘pain and suffering’ caused by Trump ban

The New York Post provides a 15 January 2021 article that cites a suit brought by a California man against Twitter.

TwitsThe notoriously litigious, self-described California sex addict best known for suing Twitch over masturbation injuries allegedly caused by the video streaming platform’s “scantily clad gamers” has a new target — this time filing a lawsuit against Twitter, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ilhan Omar over the “overbearing pain and suffering” caused by the social media giant’s ban of President Trump.

In an 11-page legal document filed Tuesday in the Northern District of California, Erik Estavillo argues that he is entitled to $88.7 million in compensation, the reinstatement of Trump’s account and a retaliatory ban of both AOC and Omar, who he says use the platform to “promote eastern communist philosophies.”

Estavillo, who is representing himself in the case, claims in the filing to have run for Congress himself last year and says that due to a variety of ailments — which include depression, agoraphobia, Crohn’s disease and OCD — he has “no friends” and relies on social media as his only way of participating in political discourse.

“The Americans with Disabilities Act should protect him from such egregious behavior on the part of Twitter,” according to the lawsuit. “He has nowhere else to voice his first amendment rights to free speech.”

The crux of his legal claim appears to center around the idea that being on Twitter is comparable to living in a “company town,” such as Pullman, Illinois, or Hershey, Pennsylvania, that he physically cannot leave. The suit cites case law from the 1946 ruling in Marsh v. Alabama.

In an exclusive statement to The Post, Estavillo said he is a Democrat and supported Bernie Sanders in last year’s primary election, but sees this lawsuit as a way to protect the American people’s First Amendment rights online.

“We are not China and we shouldn’t aspire to be,” he said. “Let’s do what’s right so we can all sleep well at the end of the day.”

Estavillo also says he’s planning to file more lawsuits against other social media companies that have since given Trump the boot.

On the flipside, the lawsuit also argues that AOC and Omar’s incendiary posting style and public personas have damaged his “psyche” — and that they should be banned from the platform as a result.

Among the many claims meant to demonstrate why the pair of “Squad” members should have their accounts purged, Estavillo appears to contend that one reason is AOC’s reluctance to date him.

“AOC even has a white boyfriend but would never think of dating a Mexican like the plaintiff,” the suit reads. “They’re hypocrites.”

Estavillo says that line was simply meant to “highlight that I believe not everyone is who they say they are.”

He also notes that in a recent Twitch appearance, Omar’s computer system appeared “highly expensive,” something that “most poor and disenfranchised people can’t afford, even before the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Representatives for Ocasio-Cortez and Omar did not immediately respond to a request for comment — though Omar tweeted Tuesday, “Bless their heart” in response to news of the suit. A spokesperson for Twitter told The Post the company had “no comment at this time.”

(Read more at the New York Post)

Lawsuits like these would only be entered in California

Surely no self-respecting Texan would bother to enter such a lawsuit. This only makes light of the situations faced by other (more challenged) Twitter users.

Child sex abuse survivor sues Twitter for refusing to remove child porn images of him

Life Site News reports on a lawsuit brought by a child sex abuse survivor (now 16) against Twitter for publishing porn images of him on its platform.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center (NCOSE), The Haba Law Firm, and The Matiasic Firm jointly filed a federal lawsuit against Twitter on behalf of a minor who was trafficked on the social media platform that boasts more than 330 million users.

The plaintiff, John Doe, a minor, was harmed by Twitter’s distribution of material depicting his sexual abuse and by Twitter’s knowing refusal to remove the images of his sexual abuse (child pornography) when notified by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s parents. The case, John Doe v. Twitter, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

At age 16, Plaintiff John Doe was horrified to find out sexually graphic videos of himself — made at age 13 under duress by sex traffickers — had been posted to Twitter. Both John Doe and his mother, Jane Doe, contacted the authorities and Twitter. Using Twitter’s reporting system, which according to its policies is designed to catch and stop illegal material like child sexual abuse material (CSAM) from being distributed, the Doe family verified that John Doe was a minor and the videos needed to be taken down immediately.

“As John Doe’s situation makes clear, Twitter is not committed to removing child sex abuse material from its platform. Even worse, Twitter contributes to and profits from the sexual exploitation of countless individuals because of its harmful practices and platform design,” said Peter Gentala, senior legal counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center. “Despite its public expressions to the contrary, Twitter is swarming with uploaded child pornography and Twitter management does little or nothing to prevent it.”

Instead of the videos being removed, Twitter did nothing, even reporting back to John Doe that the video in question did not in fact violate any of their policies. This lack of care and proper attention resulted in the CSAM of John Doe accumulating more than 167,000 views before direct involvement from a law enforcement officer caused Twitter to remove the child pornography material. John Doe is now suing Twitter for its involvement in and profiting from his sexual exploitation, which violates the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and various other protections afforded by law.

“All of these views could have been prevented by Twitter, but it inexplicably refused to remove Doe’s videos despite clear proof that he is a minor. No child or parent should have to endure this egregious violation of their rights by a technology company,” said Lisa Haba, partner at The Haba Law Firm.

“Twitter clearly needs to properly address the egregious issues of exploitation and abuse happening throughout its platform. We hope that John Doe receives some measure of justice and that this lawsuit will pave the way for other survivors to seek justice,” Gentala said.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center offers survivors of pornography-related abuse a way to seek justice.

(Read more at Life Site News)

I do not care what community Twitter considers itself a member of, circulating child porn is not acceptable

The top brass at Twitter need to be held accountable for this. They need to see the inside of a prison cell with a “child molester” sign around their neck.

British Columbia billionaire is given the green light to sue Twitter over ‘Pizzagate’ tweets

The CBC tells us how Canadian courts have opened the floodgates for British Columbian citizens to sue Twitter.

FrankGiustraWest Vancouver billionaire Frank Giustra has been given the go-ahead to sue Twitter in a B.C. courtroom over the social media giant’s publication of a series of tweets tying him to baseless conspiracy theories involving pedophile rings and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In a ruling released Thursday, Justice Elliott Myers found that Giustra’s history and presence in British Columbia, combined with the possibility the tweets may have been seen by as many as 500,000 B.C. Twitter users, meant a B.C. court should have jurisdiction over the case.

It’s a victory not only for Giustra — whose philanthropic activities have earned him membership in both the Orders of Canada and B.C. — but for Canadian plaintiffs trying to hold U.S.-based internet platforms responsible for border-crossing content.

‘I believe that words do matter’

In a statement, Giustra said he was looking forward to pursuing the case in the province where he built his reputation as the founder of Lionsgate Entertainment.

“I hope this lawsuit will help raise public awareness of the real harm to society if social media platforms are not held responsible for the content posted and published on their sites,” Giustra said.

“I believe that words do matter, and recent events have demonstrated that hate speech can incite violence with deadly consequences.”

Giustra filed the defamation lawsuit in April 2019, seeking an order to force Twitter to remove tweets he claimed painted him as “corrupt” and “criminal.”

He claimed he was targeted by a group who vilified him “for political purposes” in relation to the 2016 U.S. election and his work in support of the Clinton Foundation.

The online attacks allegedly included death threats and links to “pizzagate” — a “false, discredited and malicious conspiracy theory in which [Giustra] was labelled as a ‘pedophile,'” the claim stated.

Thorny questions

Twitter has not filed a response to Giustra’s claim itself — applying instead to have the case tossed because of jurisdiction.

The California-based company said it does not do business in B.C. and that Giustra was only relying on his B.C. roots to file the case in Canada because it would be a non-starter in the U.S., where the First Amendment protects free speech.

The company claimed he would have been mostly affected in the U.S. where he spends much of his time, owns extensive property and has substantial interests in the entertainment industry — meaning B.C. is only tangentially connected to the matter.

In essence, Myers said, Twitter claimed it was only a platform for others to post comment, and couldn’t be expected to face defamation cases every place people felt aggrieved.

The judge said the case presented some difficult — if timely — questions.

“This case illustrates the jurisdictional difficulties with internet defamation where the publication of the defamatory comments takes place in multiple countries where the plaintiff has a reputation to protect,” Myers wrote.

“The presumption is that a defendant should be sued in only one jurisdiction for an alleged wrong, but that is not a simple goal to achieve fairly for internet defamation.”

‘Strong ties to the province’

Myers found Giustra’s connection to B.C. undeniable.

“There can be no dispute that Mr. Giustra has a significant reputation in British Columbia. He also has strong ties to the province,” he wrote.

“The fact that he has a reputation in or connections to other jurisdictions does not detract from that.”

The judge said Giustra had also done what he needed to do to show his reputation in B.C. might have been affected.

(Read more at the CBC)

In the U.S., the courts have had a habit of protecting Twitter

Earlier, courts tossed out suits (one by Mac Isaac, the computer shop owner associated with the Hunter Biden laptop and another by Representative Nunes) against Twitter.

Hopefully, this will start a reversal of fortunes for the woke corporation.

Parler sues Amazon for kicking it off the Internet

The Verge reports on a lawsuit brought by a Parler against Amazon for kicking it off of the Internet.

ParlerThe creators of social network Parler have sued Amazon for ending a web hosting agreement after last week’s riot at the US Capitol. Parler claims Amazon Web Services severed ties to stop Parler from competing with the larger social platform Twitter, and it’s asking a court to stop Amazon from shutting down its account — arguing that an extended shutdown would be like “pulling the plug on a hospital patient on life support.”

Parler bills itself as a more permissive alternative to Facebook and Twitter, particularly as those sites have cracked down on President Donald Trump and his supporters for seeking to violently overturn the US election results. That stance has earned backlash from digital infrastructure companies. Apple and Google removed the Parler app from their stores, limiting its reach. Amazon dealt an even more fatal blow when it kicked Parler off AWS, taking the site down altogether.

The lawsuit sheds some light on Amazon’s rationale for banning Parler. In an email, Amazon’s moderation team says it is “troubled” by repeated policy violations. The email cites 98 posts that incite violence. It includes screenshots of a call to hang “traitors,” as well as an exhortation to “start systematicly assasinating [sic]” liberal leaders, supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement, and others in January — with a note that “I already have a news worthy event planned.” Amazon said publicly that it “cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others.”

AWS is the world’s largest cloud service provider, controlling approximately one-third of the market, followed by competitors like Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure. Parler argues that getting kicked off AWS was a “death knell” for the site, since it’s been unable to find another host. And it claims Amazon made the call to protect Twitter, since the two companies signed a multiyear deal for web services last year. It also says it was banned because of “political animus.”

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have questioned the power of infrastructure providers to suppress speech online. “It’s understandable that no company would want to be associated with the repellant speech that is now rampant,” ACLU attorney Ben Wizner told New York Times reporter Davey Alba. Nonetheless, “there will be times when large majorities of people want to repel speech that is genuinely important. So I think we should encourage, in a broad sense, companies like Amazon to embrace neutrality principles.”

As a private company, however, Amazon has broad legal latitude to cut off customers. It’s also not necessarily responsible for Parler’s difficulty in finding a new host. While the suit says AWS’s public statements about moderation have “made Parler a pariah,” activists were already pressuring companies to cut ties with the site.

An Amazon spokesperson told The Verge that there was “no merit” to the suit’s claims. “AWS provides technology and services to customers across the political spectrum, and we respect Parler’s right to determine for itself what content it will allow. However, it is clear that there is significant content on Parler that encourages and incites violence against others, and that Parler is unable or unwilling to promptly identify and remove this content, which is a violation of our terms of service,” said the spokesperson. “We made our concerns known to Parler over a number of weeks and during that time we saw a significant increase in this type of dangerous content, not a decrease, which led to our suspension of their services Sunday evening.”

Parler’s lawsuit echoes a similar complaint by Gab, another social network favored by far-right figures. Gab sued Google in 2017 for kicking it off the Play Store, claiming it amounted to anti-competitive behavior. However, it dropped the suit after Google allowed it to resubmit the app for review.

(Go to The Verge for the papers detailing the suit against Amazon)

Since Parler should have been protected by Section 230, the deplatforming of Parler should be reason enough for Republicans to fix the Twitter/Google/Facebook/Instagram situation once they regain power

If Google Play Store and Apple Play Store can insist that Parler impose leftist censoring or lose their spot in their stores, that sounds like the collusion of a cartel. If Google and Apple can get with Amazon and remove Parler from the Internet, it seems they used their government-like power (derived by being given access directly from the U.S. government then in charge of the Internet) to deny a free-speech forum access to the Internet.

Poland: The center of online free speech

Breitbart points out how Poland might become the center of online free speech.

Poland'sFreedomActAgainstBigTechCensorshipPoland’s new Freedom Act against Big Tech censorship will see members of the public automatically notified of “shadowbans” and empowered to overturn restrictions if their speech online is lawful.

Speaking exclusively to Breitbart News, Deputy Minister of Justice Sebastian Kaleta, who is spearheading the new legislation, confirmed that “every time an algorithm is used to limit reach, the user will be informed if and why his reach is being limited.”

The Polish government has previously confirmed that its new laws against tech censorship will give Polish citizens a statutory right to appeal against bans and content removal if their speech was lawful under the Polish constitution, with a new Free Speech Board able to order tech firms to restore removed accounts and content on pain of huge fines.

Some tech censorship is more insidious, however, with Silicon Valley drastically curtailing some users’ reach and ability to build a following — sometimes openly, sometimes not — through so-called “shadowbans”, without ever outright banning them or deleting content.

Kaleta told Breitbart London that “the process of using algorithms to suppress particular views, as long as they do not break Polish law, [will] be regulated” and that “if social media platforms break this law, they will be fined.”

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary has also confirmed that it will be taking action to prevent the shadowbanning of “Christian, conservative, [and] right-wing” voices online.

While some right-wingers have been reluctant to call on elected officials to secure their right to speak freely on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube because they are “private companies”, Kaleta was clear that, for the Law and Justice Party (PiS) government in Poland, the provision of state protection of people’s right to freedom of expression online was merely part of the “civilisational process”.

“Since we have laws regarding banking, telecommunications, the armaments industry, and many other fields, we should also regulate Big Tech,” he insisted, pointing out that social media platforms “provide a concrete service, that is the ability to communicate on a large scale” and compared them to public utilities like telephone companies.

“The owners of social media companies are not running just any business. The Big Tech companies are now monopolies,” he said.

“I mean, imagine if Alexander Graham Bell were to decide who can speak through the telephone and Thomas Edison decided where lightbulbs were to be used?” he asked.

(Read this at Breitbart)

Odd that a government that has been under the jackbooted heel of communists now stands up against Fascist Twitter

The Polish, who have lived under the boot of the real “Russians, Russians, Russians” now is a better source of free speech than Jack Dorsey will ever dream of being. Fascist thug that he is.

Joe Biden’s America: Hypocrisy on parade

Simon & Schuster drops book by Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley

Davenport, Illinois NBC affiliate KWQC reports that Simon and Schuster has broken a contract with Senator Josh Hawley due to his having challenged the electors of Arizona.

HawleyA planned book by Sen. Josh Hawley, who objected to President-elect Joe Biden’s win and backed baseless claims that the election was stolen, has been canceled by its publisher in the wake of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump supporters, a decision the Missouri Republican called “Orwellian” and vowed to fight in court.

In a statement Thursday, Simon & Schuster announced that “After witnessing the disturbing, deadly insurrection that took place on Wednesday in Washington, D.C, Simon & Schuster has decided to cancel publication of Senator Josh Hawley’s forthcoming book, ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech.’

“We did not come to this decision lightly,” the publisher added. “As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.”

Thousands of Trump supporters had gathered in Washington on Wednesday to protest Congress’ formal certification of Biden’s win and many ended up storming into the Capitol and occupying it for hours, delaying the process into early Thursday morning. A widely seen photo, taken before the occupation, shows Hawley raising a fist in solidarity to the crowd.

Hawley has often been cited as possible future presidential candidate and his book, scheduled to come out in June, was an intended forum for a favorite theme — the undue power of Google, Facebook and other internet giants. Soon after news broke that his book was dropped, Hawley tweeted, and tagged his comments directly to Simon & Schuster, that he was being unfairly censored and punished: “I was representing my constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity, which they have now decided to redefine as sedition.”

“This could not be more Orwellian… Let me be clear, this is not just a contract dispute. It’s a direct assault on the First Amendment… I will fight this cancel culture with everything I have. We’ll see you in court.”

(Read more at KWQC)

What deals were dropped from Barbara Boxer when she challenged the electors of Ohio

When Senator Barbara Boxer challenged the electors of Ohio who supported President George W. Bush, her attempt failed. What happened to Barbara Boxer after she made that challenge? She made millions while in her seat as a senator for California and enjoyed the praise of Democrat colleagues — praise that extended even into 2021.

Far Left activist John Sullivan from Utah who was arrested for storming the US Capitol is released without charges

According to the Gateway Pundit, and  one of the many Antifa members identified as breaching the capitol has been released.

SullivanEarlier this week CNN interviewed John Sullivan from Utah after the shooting death of Ashli Babbit by Capitol Hill police.

John Sullivan, a noted leftist leader from Utah, stormed the US Capitol with fellow activists on Wednesday.
John Sullivan is a Black Lives Matter goon from Utah who was flown into DC during the planned “Stop the Steal” rally.

In August John Sullivan threatened to “rip President Trump from the White House” during violence in Washington DC. Sullivan was flown to DC for the protests.

From our earlier report: “We About to Go Get that MotherF***er! – It’s Time for Revolution!” – VIDEO – BLM Threatens to Rip President Trump from White House

John Sullivan stormed the US Capitol. He was near Ashli Babbit when she was killed by Capitol police.

Amy Mek at RAIR Foundation reported:

On Friday investigative journalist Millie Weaver ran into John Sullivan in Washington DC. She overheard him say he was not being charged.

John Sullivan organized a BLM-Antifa action at the Washington Memorial on Wednesday, January 6th — then he was seen storming the US Capitol!
How many of his Antifa buddies were with him?

(Read this with additional links at the Gateway Pundit)

I don’t remember the press or the politicians complaining about Seattle, DC, and other Antifa or BLM riot locations

Even when there were murders in the CHAZ, I don’t remember the Democrats in the media or the FBI calling for prosecution. All I remember was the “summer of love” and silence from Pelosi.

However, I do remember DC when Republicans were attacked in August 2020. I remember life savings burning in Minneapolis while Democrats gave Antifa and BLM space to riot. I remember monuments across America being destroyed by Anitfa and BLM and we were told to understand.

I even remember that AOC and Pressley raised bail funds for Antifa members who attacked police in Boston.

On un-American censorship in Big Tech

Having suppressed Biden’s bad news, Big Tech works to suppress news from other venues:

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple’s if it doesn’t implement a moderation plan

USA Today unknowingly points out the hypocrisy of the left as it tells how Google has removed Parler from its app selections and Apple may follow suit if Parler does not start to impose a leftist speech code on its subscribers.

1984Google removed the social media app Parler Friday evening because it posed a “public safety threat.”

The social network, launched in 2018, became popular among conservatives and an unmoderated home to more extreme views in 2020 when both Facebook and Twitter tightened up their content moderation and labeling.

“In order to protect user safety on Google Play, our longstanding policies require that apps displaying user-generated content have moderation policies and enforcement that removes egregious content like posts that incite violence,” said a Google spokesperson in a statement to USA TODAY.

Following the events of Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts were blocked from posting “indefinitely.” Twitter took a stronger step by permanently suspending the 45th president from its platform on Friday night.

“We’re aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US. We recognize that there can be reasonable debate about content policies and that it can be difficult for apps to immediately remove all violative content, but for us to distribute an app through Google Play, we do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content,” the statement continued.

Apple also threatened to remove Parler from its App Store after for failing to moderate incitements to violence and illegal activity, according to a notice obtained by multiple media sources.

Apple reportedly ordered Parler to implement a moderation plan and wipe “objectionable content” from its platform within the next 24 hours.

Parler CEO John Matze said in a post on Thursday it was against the moves by Facebook and Twitter.

“It’s clear that Facebook and Twitter believe the ends justify the means. They believe the American people are weak. They insult our founding fathers by suggesting Zuckerburg and Dorsey know what is best for us. Parler is not an arbiter of truth. We believe in you,” Matze said.

(Read a little more of the same at USA Today)

Hasn’t it been totalitarian regimes that require everyone to stick to the propaganda?

I have never lived in a totalitarian regime, yet. However, I have read stories of resistance to the Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, Fidel’s Cuba, Maduro’s Venezuela, and the fictional Big Brother of 1984 — all stories where the little guy resists being brainwashed by the overlord.

Odd, isn’t it, that these “progressive” companies (backed by the “progressive” politicians) have all levelled the “Nazi” label at conservatives, but are fully acting like totalitarians?

Since the left is so quick to defend this, will they also defend silencing by communist regimes?

YouTube says it will move more quickly to suspend channels posting videos claiming widespread voter fraud

CNBC repeats the party line by informing America that videos claiming widespread voter fraud will not be tolerated.

YouTube says it’s going to suspend any channels posting new videos of false widespread voter fraud claims, rather than giving them a warning as was its previous policy.

“Due to the disturbing events that transpired yesterday, and given that the election results have now been certified, starting today any channels posting new videos with false claims in violation of our policies will now receive a strike,” the company said in a statement Thursday.

YouTube’s regular policy allows channels to get one warning for posting false content before giving them a strike. Channels that receive a strike are suspended from posting or livestreaming for one week. If they receive three strikes in the same 90-day period, YouTube will permanently ban them.

YouTube said that over the last month, it has removed thousands of videos that spread misinformation claiming widespread voter fraud changed the result of the 2020 presidential election, including “several” videos President Donald Trump posted to his channel.

YouTube removed a video Trump posted Wednesday that made false claims about the results of the election but has not yet issued any formal statement about banning his channel or blocking him from posting. A spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

YouTube is not going nearly as far as its competitors in cracking down on Trump. Facebook announced Thursday that it would take the unprecedented step of blocking Trump from posting at least until Inauguration Day. Twitter blocked several Trump tweets containing false claims and put a 12-hour moratorium on new posts until he removed those tweets.

(Read more tripe at CNBC)

If you did bother to read more at CNBC, you might have asked the same question I asked

In the next paragraph of this Democrat propaganda piece, you would have read (emphasis is mine)

However, many have argued these changes are too little, too late, and the public has long been calling for the company to take more action against conspiracy theories, which have fueled beliefs leading to the violence that occurred this week.

Many of what have argued for more censorship? Many out-of-touch leftist TV talk show hosts like the women of The View? Many frightened and angry politicians who think that we are going to forget about their failures when videos on widespread fraud remain banned?

Although Democrats have always been good at promoting seminar callers, I find it hard to believe that “the public” has been calling for the company to take more action. Especially when a Rasmussen poll finds that Trump’s approval ratings rose after his speech against fraud on 6 January 2021.