Posted on 08/09/2018 10:14:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is a dangerous precedent that can be used against any ideology, left or right
Across the board in what appears to be a highly-coordinated effort to silence the message behind Infowars and Alex Jones, most major social media, backbone utilities associated with our web site and video platforms have launched unprecedented account bans and suspensions on virtually all of our channels.
Regardless of what you think of me, and what you have heard indirectly through third-party sources, you are clearly witnessing a 21st century purge of an ideology.
And even if you don’t agree with our message that everyone should exercise their right to question the status quo, you should be very concerned about what’s happening.
Because this ideology that is now under attack is the same ideology that played a pivotal role in founding this great nation: challenging the establishment systems with independent ideas that encourage new debates and discussions.
For more than a year, we have witnessed the mainstream news media and Democratic groups tell us that the manipulation of social media could turn an election.
By their own admission, social media would be the most viable option to alter the course of the nation, influence millions of people, and shut down free speech and personal expression that questions the status quo.
We have been told that one of the greatest threats to our democracy is the manipulation of the information that we receive on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
Now, these same groups that have been telling us that free speech must be defended against those who seek to control it on our news feeds, have launched a full-scale war on the free speech and information that they disagree with.
There is no question that large social media companies have become the nation’s premiere source of information, referring hundreds of millions to news and information.
Although these groups are private entities, their scale has achieved them a monopoly on the free flow of information.
Much like the FCC rules that the airwaves and cable should be equally accessible to all in the public trust, these modes of communication should be equally open to the same access, and not subject to control by those who may choose to disagree with the information itself. Is a different opinion enough to silence an entire ideology?
I do not claim to always be right. But the accusations leveled at me are distortions of the truth and have been used systematically to impeach my character.
But this coordinated action by the establishment to silence me has only awakened a new resolve in those who now see more clearly than ever how the establishment systems will go to any length to shut down free speech and information that questions the status quo.
This is a turning point for our nation. Will you rally behind the principles of free speech, or will you concede to having your ability to access new ideas and information restricted and controlled by those who believe you cannot think for yourself?
If we allow this level of censorship to continue, how long before it becomes normalized?
How long before it’s not Alex Jones and Infowars being shut down on major platforms, but any ideology that disagrees with the establishment status quo? We must rally behind the principles that founded this great nation, and not allow deep censorship to become normalized and accepted.
Good move, Jim.
I will make a donation.
Thank you.
ptsal
I think I’ve seen Matt( aka Travis ) on here. My TV was shot by a barrett fifty about ten years ago so anything on TV is foreign to me unless I can catch a partial show om You Tube or other sites. I haven’t listened to Sean Hannity in years. He always talks like someone kicked him hard in the nuts. JMHO here.
FR is privately held.
FB is publicly traded.
That’s a big difference and it makes all the difference in matters of membership.
bump
This maybe an opportunity to build a large communication pipe connected to the Internet Backbone basically become an ISP or a Tier 1 Provider that services conservative groups. Of course this would cost big $$.
Good move.
btw, Facebook is also now monitoring and censoring content in private messages.
Great call, Jim.
I think AJ is a blowhard and even possibly an agent provocateur, but prisonplanet and Infowars have a lot of fans on the libertarian and conservative right, and they often provide very interesting perspectives.
If Facebook wanted to be a left wing, liberal-progressive website, that censored conservative speech, they should have presented themselves as a left wing activist forum. They should have presented in their terms and conditions of use, as a censoring and banning conservative speech. They should have let the public, their members, stockholders and other regulatory bodies know that they do not allow conservative speech, or allow republican politicians from usage.
FreeRepublic is a conservative activist forum. There is no secret about it. The owner of this privately held forum is very clear about the mission of this website. He has made it clear that he will not allow this website to be used to promote liberalism.
IMO this is the key quote in this statement. These entities , and I am including Google as well, have become so large that they control the free flow of information.
The fact that they are colluding to censor, and silence someone specifically, just because their left wing ideology does not agree with him, is a very dangerous development.
These companies need to be broken down into smaller, competing entities, otherwise they become a problem for free speech.
They could essentially shut down political speech that does not match their left wing philosophy.
And, you know, you might read its mission statement.
Are you going to make like your namesake now that your oh-so-wise counsel has been repudiated?
We stand together or hang separately. He is not my read of the day but why are they not wanting YOU to read this man? Why are they allowed to discriminate against conservatives in the stream of commerce? Dont give me that “private business” crap. That didn’t work legally with blacks and it doesn’t work with conservatives. This needs to be met with fierce objection.
Yes, this is extreme.
We’re talking about upwards of 10 internet tech companies all working in concert to try and drive someone with a different political viewpoint into web obscurity.
Yes, this is war by other means fought on many levels.
Food for thought: “What I saw at the coup.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3654942/posts
If Jim controlled 98% of what folks could see by promoting or hiding it, yes. (Goolag/YooToob/FacebookTwitter)
FB is publicly traded.
That’s a big difference and it makes all the difference in matters of membership.
So if Jim decided to offer a 20% share of FR to outside investors he would forfeit his right to ban people?
You sure about that?
And FB has made it clear via their terms of service that they can control what's posted on their site.
I may not like their decisions and if they piss off too many people their business will suffer, but as a private business they have the right to let anyone use their service or not provided they aren't discriminating against some protected class.
Check out https://mewe.com
The CEO sounds like a patriot. Doesn’t like the way facistbook is doing things so he started something very similar. Good on privacy, no facial recognition. Nice working system.
Why would he give up his right to make these decisions if the site got too popular?
Do you think that just because FR had 100 times more users than DU Jim would have to allow their posters on here to say what they want?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.