By Nicholas Stix
On September 21, I attempted to post a video by James O’Keefe, of Project Veritas, with interviews with doctors and R.N.s, about the terrible side-effects from the Wuhan China Virus Vaxx, but I just learned that google/blogger had blocked it:
“This post was unpublished because it violates Blogger Community Guidelines. To republish, please update the content to adhere to guidelines.”
I had titled the item, “Is Covid the Hill You Want to Die on? If Not, Which Would You Prefer? We Have a Large Assortment of Hills on Offer.”
My hit counter says it got 103 hits, and GRA was able to post a comment, so it wasn't automatically sabotaged. Did an enemy hit the fire alarm?
>Did an enemy hit the fire alarm?
ReplyDeleteIt's possible, who knows?
YouTube belongs to Google (although it shouldn't; Google/Alphabet should be forced to divest YT, but I digress), and YT now has a policy banning vaccine 'misinformation', which is basically whatever they say it is:
NYT Sep 29 2019 -- YouTube Bans Anti-Vaccine Misinformation
Several YT channels I knew of or subscribed to were already deleted over this.
This policy surely applies to other platforms owned/controlled by Google -- it's been clear for years now that if you want to speak freely you need to get off these big tech platforms.
BTW, this kind of censorship is clearly an abuse of §230, which granted online providers wide-ranging liability protection for material published on their platforms -- the other side of that bargain was that these platforms would remain neutral -- but for years now that has not been the case; I was first introduced to this on Twitter, a platform I'd paid zero attention to before 2015/2016 and the run-up to Trump v HRC -- Twitter used its effeminate, vague/arbitrary (i.e. easily construed to mean whatever Twitter wants them to mean), and ever-changing ToS to massively censor people on the political Right.
Trump was president and the Republicucks controlled Congress 2017 - 2019, but did nothing about this already obvious and extensive problem.
Here's a comment about online censorship and §230 I left on unz.com a few months ago (link):
ReplyDelete----------
While ‘Community Guidelines’ are stated in legalese, they are largely arbitrary, interpreted however the platform provider sees fit, and actions based on them are very difficult to contest (hence it’s usually pointless to do so).
Communications Decency Act/§230 -- At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users ... The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.
So re §230, most people are familiar with §230(c)(1), which offers platforms (‘providers of an interactive computer service’) immunity for content published by users — but fewer know about §230(c)(2), which offers liability protection for platforms that remove/censor content, as long as this is done in ‘good faith’, e.g. per some plausible- sounding interpretation of their ‘Community Guidelines’ and/or ‘Terms of Service’.
Clearly §230, specifically §230(c)(2), is now being widely abused by platform providers — but this has been true for several years; it was already a big problem in 2015/2016 (the run-up to the 2016 presidential election) — Trump was president and the Republicans controlled Congress 2017 – 2019, but they did nothing.
----------
Clearly there are now many people and organizations in the US who no longer adhere to the spirit of free speech; they don't really seem to believe in this fundamental right -- in this sense, a LOT has already been lost; there's a meme for people who cannot see this: 'muh Constitution' -- so it's uncertain how effective legislative remedies will be in the long term.
jerry pdx
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of idiots take children to Haiti? https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2021/10/19/kidnappers-demand-17-million-for-release-of-u-s-missionaries-in-haiti/
5 of the kidnap victims are children and there is a baby also. The irresponsibility of the adults and parents of the children is beyond belief, any females will be raped eventually, if not right away, that's what negroes do and they're nature doesn't change.