Category: Social Disease

Today in Social Media Censorship

YouTube has been going after content on ivermectin as well as other things. People are beginning to notice.  Weinstein started a campaign to highlight the censorship and it’s been getting friction on Twitter.  Eventually that did change but its an uphill battle.

Have a look at YouTube’s COVID-19 medical misinformation policy for a long list of what’s Verboten.  Under the rubric of “misinformation” they are censoring actual information from actual doctors and scientists, and real studies a lot of which have been peer reviewed.

Smells like there’s a purge coming.

Social Disease

From Zuck to Yuck;

His free speech views faded when they became a threat, rather than a boon, to his bottom line. Now, rather than being seen the way he wants to be, as an open-minded entrepreneur and even a potential presidential candidate, Zuckerberg finally stands exposed as a leading member of the new techno-aristocracy manipulating the world and shaping our society to fit their own world view, while getting ever richer in the process.

Fauci’s Fibs

Lindsay points out that they’re a feature not a bug.

The counter point to this is no he’s just an idiot.  My money’s on both.

Do a quick search on the psychology of compliance And all sorts of interesting things pop up. Same goes for obedience. And also conformity.  The midwits in charge are not just taking questionable advice from the unions, journalists and medical people, the brain police are also in the room.

It’s not unlike giving a monkey a machine gun. Except there’s more than one monkey. Eventually they might hit the right target but a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt along the way.


“Congress … has given digital platforms ‘immunity from certain types of suits’ … but it has not imposed corresponding responsibilities”

Justice Clarence Thomas is a national treasure.

@JackPosobiec: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finds social media companies do not have First Amendment right to ban protected speech and that Section 230 is unconstitutional

Much like with a communications utility, this concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over speech. When a user does not already know exactly where to find something on the Internet—and users rarely do— Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90% of the time. It can suppress content by deindexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results. Grind, Schechner, McMillan, & West, How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 15, 2019. Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through similar means. And, as the distributor of the clear majority of e-books and about half of all physical books, 4 Amazon can impose cataclysmic consequences on authors by, among other things, blocking a listing.
It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

File is here, starting on Page 8..