Trump’s FCC chair designee vows to tackle Big Tech ‘censorship cartel’

[NxNW]

I'm waiting for the treasonous heads to start rolling.

Someone gave aid and comfort to our enemy? Who? And which enemy?

Jan 20 won't come soon enough.

2029, I agree.

 

[HARK!]

Yeah, see...I do. I like to do that before I make snap judgments about stuff. Call it a quirk of mine.

I wouldn't call pouring over the whole of the Twitter Files a snap judgement. Clearly there was a pattern of abuse.

Mike Benz has also given me great insight into the depth of the Biden administration's attacks on the 1st Amendment.

 

[HARK!]

That's a weird way to spell asked them to remove nude pics of his son.

That's a weird way of describing burying Hunter's shady business deals, and election interference.

 

[HARK!]

Where's the complains about Musk buying a company and changing their moderation policies to support his favored candidate?

You mean by removing the unjust ban on a sitting candidate running for President? I don't complain when justice is served. I wasn't cheering injustice.

 

[HARK!]

Seems very selective. Almost as if this weren't some principled stand for freedom of speech but instead a cynical attempt to force private companies to host right wing misinformation.

You mean that Hunter's damning laptop exists is misinformation? Do you have any proof of this; or are you relying on Team Biden's disinformation?

 

[HARK!]

The Supreme Court says it never happened.

Proof?

 

[HARK!]

Someone gave aid and comfort to our enemy? Who? And which enemy?

I said nothing of aid and comfort. I said treason. In case you are not familiar with the word:

treason​

noun
trea·son ˈtrē-zᵊn How to pronounce treason (audio)
Synonyms of treasonnext
1
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Definition of TREASON

the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family; the betrayal of a trust : treachery… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[HARK!]

2029, I agree.

Unless the Left's Government controlled media's disinformation turns out to be true; and they get their wish; and Trump steps up as dictator.

IMO they label them trusted sources, to put a fig leaf over the fact that they can't be trusted.

 

[A2SG]

I wouldn't call pouring over the whole of the Twitter Files a snap judgement. Clearly there was a pattern of abuse.

What may be clear to you isn't clear to me. Care to give me details, like I previously asked for?

Mike Benz has also given me great insight into the depth of the Biden administration's attacks on the 1st Amendment.

Care to share?

-- A2SG, still lacking in specifics here.....

 

[HARK!]

What may be clear to you isn't clear to me. Care to give me details, like I previously asked for?

I would encourage you to read the Twitter Files. It it begins to expose the great depth of this censorship campaign.

Care to share?

You can find a wealth of evidence here.

Reports Archives - Foundation for Freedom Online

foundationforfreedomonline.com

 

[HARK!]

-- A2SG, still lacking in specifics here.....

Here are some more:

Federal Government Censorship and Americans’ First Amendment Rights ..........................5
I. The Biden-Harris Administration’s censorship efforts.......................................................7
The Censorship-Industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coerced Big
Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration ......11
The FBI’s Collaboration with a Compromised Ukrainian Intelligence Agency to Censor
American Speech ..................................................................................................................892
Election Interference: How the FBI “Prebunked” A True Story About the Biden Family’s
Corruption in Advance of the 2020 Presidential Election ....................................................919
The Weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission: An Agency’s Overreach to Harass
Elon Musk’s Twitter ...........................................................................................................1560
The Weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission Part II: Harassment of Elon Musk
............................................................................................................................................1673
Censorship’s Next Frontier: The Federal Government’s Attempt to Control Artificial
Intelligence to Suppress Free Speech .................................................................................1747
II. The government’s use of non-governmental entities to censor Americans by proxy
................................................................................................................................................1765
The Weaponization of “Disinformation” Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal
Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Political Speech ............1768
The Weaponization of CISA: How a “Cybersecurity” Agency Colluded with Big Tech and
“Disinformation” Partners to Censor Americans ...............................................................1872
The Weaponization of the National Science Foundation: How NSF is Funding the
Development of Automated Tools to Censor Online Speech “At Scale” and Trying to Cover
Up Its Actions .....................................................................................................................1909
III. Threats to free speech abroad and the risk at home ..................................................1988
The Attack on Free Speech Abroad and the Biden Administration’s Silence: The Case of
Brazil ..................................................................................................................................1992

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2024-12/Part-1-Final-Weaponization-Report-Compilation.pdf

 

[HARK!]

be nice to know the details before we criticize them

Big Tech Changed Their Content Moderation Policies Because of Biden White
House Pressure. The Biden White House pressure campaign largely succeeded in 2021.
In the weeks and months following the start of the White House pressure campaign,
Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon all changed their content moderation policies. The
White House pressured companies to censor information that did not violate their content
moderation policies at the time. The best evidence to assess why content moderation
policies were changed is to review relevant email correspondence and other documents at
the time of the policy change. Indeed, both Facebook and Amazon referred to the Biden
White House’s efforts as “pressure.”5

Here is a subset of key documents first obtained by
the Committee and Select Subcommittee pursuant to subpoena:

o In March 2021, an Amazon employee emailed others within the company about the
reason for the Amazon bookstore’s new content moderation policy change: “[T]he
impetus for this request is criticism from the Biden Administration about sensitive
books we’re giving prominent placement to.”6

o In March 2021, just one day prior to a scheduled call with the White House, an
Amazon employee explained how changes to Amazon’s bookstore policies were
being applied “due to criticism from the Biden people.”7

o In July 2021, when Facebook executive Nick Clegg asked a Facebook employee why
the company censored the man-made theory of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the employee
responded: “Because we were under pressure from the [Biden] administration and
others to do more. . . . We shouldn’t have done it. 3

o In August 2021, an internal Facebook email explained why the company was
developing, and ultimately implementing, new content moderation policies:
“[Facebook’s] Leadership asked Misinfo Policy . . . to brainstorm some additional
policy levers we can pull to be more aggressive against . . . misinformation. This is
stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the [Biden]
administration.”9

o In September 2021, after receiving months of criticism for not censoring non-
violative content, YouTube shared with the Biden White House a new “policy
proposal” to censor more content criticizing the safety and efficacy of vaccines,
asking for “any feedback” the White House could provide before the policy had been
finalized.10 The White House gushed: “at first blush, seems like a great step.”11

• The Biden White House’s Censorship Campaign Targeted True Information, Satire,
and Other Content that Did Not Violate the Platforms’ Policies. Contrary to their
claims of wanting to combat alleged so-called “misinformation” and foreign
disinformation, the Biden Administration pressured the companies to censor true
information, satire, memes, opinions, and Americans’ personal experiences.

o For example, internal July 2021 Facebook emails obtained by the Committee and
Select Subcommittee show that Facebook understood that the Biden White House’s
position as wanting “negative information on or opinions about the vaccine” removed
as well as “humorous or satirical content that suggests the vaccine isn’t safe.”12
o The same set of emails also noted that “The Surgeon General wants us to remove true
information about side effects.”13

• The Biden White House’s Censorship Campaign had a Chilling Effect on Other
Speech. In February 2021, Facebook increased its censorship of several topics—
including those related to the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus—as part of a general
response to the Biden White House’s pressure to “do more.”14 After a few months it
became clear that the Biden White House’s focus was on alleged vaccine misinformation.
In May 2021, Facebook stopped removing content about the lab leak theory, which even
parts of the Biden Administration consider true today.15 Zuckerberg privately told top
Facebook officials that “[t]his seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our
4 standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we’ll often regret it
later.”16

• The White House had Leverage Because the Companies had Other Policy Concerns
Involving the Biden Administration.

o In July 2021, Clegg emailed others in the company that “[g]iven the bigger fish we
have to fry with the [Biden] Administration,” Facebook should try to think creatively
about “how we can be responsive to [the Administration’s] concerns.”17

o In April 2021, YouTube’s Public Policy team emailed YouTube’s Product team that
having the Product team brief the Biden White House would be “hugely beneficial”
because the company was “seek[ing] to work closely with [the Biden] administration
on multiple policy fronts.”18

• The Biden White House Pushed Censorship of Books, Not Just Social Media. The
Biden White House pressure campaign was not limited to just social media companies,
but also the world’s biggest online bookstore, Amazon.19
The parallels for the three companies are striking. In each case, the companies identified
the Biden White House’s censorship requests as “pressure” or noted a fear that things could
“spiral[] out of control.”20 And while there is a difference in how long and in what ways each
company succumbed to the White House’s pressure, by September 2021, Facebook, YouTube,
and Amazon had each adopted new content moderation policies that removed or reduced
viewpoints and content disfavored by the Biden White House.21

The Facebook Files. In February 2021, Facebook increased its censorship of anti-
vaccine content as well as the lab leak theory of the origin of the virus because of “tense
conversations with the new [Biden] Administration” and as part of an effort to be responsive to
the Biden White House’s exhortations to “do more” to combat alleged misinformation.22 After a
few months, Facebook realized the White House cared more about censoring anti-vaccine
content and so the company lifted its censorship of the lab-leak theory. In response, Zuckerberg
said the mistake served as a reminder to not “compromise our standards due to pressure from an
administration

More:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2024-12/Part-1-Final-Weaponization-Report-Compilation.pdf

 

[NxNW]

I said nothing of aid and comfort. I said treason. In case you are not familiar with the word:

It's part of the Constitution's definition. But yours doesn't apply either.

 

[NxNW]

Big Tech Changed Their Content Moderation Policies Because of Biden White
House Pressure. [Etc]

Not a single example of censorship by the Biden administration.

 

[HARK!]

But yours doesn't apply either.

We'll see whether or not the Justice Department agrees with your opinion.

 

[A2SG]

Big Tech Changed Their Content Moderation Policies Because of Biden White
House Pressure. The Biden White House pressure campaign largely succeeded in 2021.
In the weeks and months following the start of the White House pressure campaign,
Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon all changed their content moderation policies. The
White House pressured companies to censor information that did not violate their content
moderation policies at the time. The best evidence to assess why content moderation
policies were changed is to review relevant email correspondence and other documents at
the time of the policy change. Indeed, both Facebook and Amazon referred to the Biden
White House’s efforts as “pressure.”5

Here is a subset of key documents first obtained by
the Committee and Select Subcommittee pursuant to subpoena:

o In March 2021, an Amazon employee emailed others within the company about the
reason for the Amazon bookstore’s new content moderation policy change: “[T]he
impetus for this request is criticism from the Biden Administration about sensitive
books we’re giving prominent placement to.”6

o In March 2021, just one day prior to a scheduled call with the White House, an
Amazon employee explained how changes to Amazon’s bookstore policies were
being applied “due to criticism from the Biden people.”7

o In July 2021, when Facebook executive Nick Clegg asked a Facebook employee why
the company censored the man-made theory of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the employee
responded: “Because we were under pressure from the [Biden] administration and
others to do more. . . . We shouldn’t have done it. 3

o In August 2021, an internal Facebook email explained why the company was
developing, and ultimately implementing, new content moderation policies:
“[Facebook’s] Leadership asked Misinfo Policy . . . to brainstorm some additional
policy levers we can pull to be more aggressive against . . . misinformation. This is
stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the [Biden]
administration.”9

o In September 2021, after receiving months of criticism for not censoring non-
violative content, YouTube shared with the Biden White House a new “policy
proposal” to censor more content criticizing the safety and efficacy of vaccines,
asking for “any feedback” the White House could provide before the policy had been
finalized.10 The White House gushed: “at first blush, seems like a great step.”11

• The Biden White House’s Censorship Campaign Targeted True Information, Satire,
and Other Content that Did Not Violate the Platforms’ Policies. Contrary to their
claims of wanting to combat alleged so-called “misinformation” and foreign
disinformation, the Biden Administration pressured the companies to censor true
information, satire, memes, opinions, and Americans’ personal experiences.

o For example, internal July 2021 Facebook emails obtained by the Committee and
Select Subcommittee show that Facebook understood that the Biden White House’s
position as wanting “negative information on or opinions about the vaccine” removed
as well as “humorous or satirical content that suggests the vaccine isn’t safe.”12
o The same set of emails also noted that “The Surgeon General wants us to remove true
information about side effects.”13

• The Biden White House’s Censorship Campaign had a Chilling Effect on Other
Speech. In February 2021, Facebook increased its censorship of several topics—
including those related to the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus—as part of a general
response to the Biden White House’s pressure to “do more.”14 After a few months it
became clear that the Biden White House’s focus was on alleged vaccine misinformation.
In May 2021, Facebook stopped removing content about the lab leak theory, which even
parts of the Biden Administration consider true today.15 Zuckerberg privately told top
Facebook officials that “[t]his seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our
4 standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we’ll often regret it
later.”16

• The White House had Leverage Because the Companies had Other Policy Concerns
Involving the Biden Administration.

o In July 2021, Clegg emailed others in the company that “[g]iven the bigger fish we
have to fry with the [Biden] Administration,” Facebook should try to think creatively
about “how we can be responsive to [the Administration’s] concerns.”17

o In April 2021, YouTube’s Public Policy team emailed YouTube’s Product team that
having the Product team brief the Biden White House would be “hugely beneficial”
because the company was “seek[ing] to work closely with [the Biden] administration
on multiple policy fronts.”18

• The Biden White House Pushed Censorship of Books, Not Just Social Media. The
Biden White House pressure campaign was not limited to just social media companies,
but also the world’s biggest online bookstore, Amazon.19
The parallels for the three companies are striking. In each case, the companies identified
the Biden White House’s censorship requests as “pressure” or noted a fear that things could
“spiral[] out of control.”20 And while there is a difference in how long and in what ways each
company succumbed to the White House’s pressure, by September 2021, Facebook, YouTube,
and Amazon had each adopted new content moderation policies that removed or reduced
viewpoints and content disfavored by the Biden White House.21

The Facebook Files. In February 2021, Facebook increased its censorship of anti-
vaccine content as well as the lab leak theory of the origin of the virus because of “tense
conversations with the new [Biden] Administration” and as part of an effort to be responsive to
the Biden White House’s exhortations to “do more” to combat alleged misinformation.22 After a
few months, Facebook realized the White House cared more about censoring anti-vaccine
content and so the company lifted its censorship of the lab-leak theory. In response, Zuckerberg
said the mistake served as a reminder to not “compromise our standards due to pressure from an
administration

More:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2024-12/Part-1-Final-Weaponization-Report-Compilation.pdf

Okay, that's better. Still a bit light on some details, such as precisely what "pressure" was exerted, and the specific nature of the misinformation being targeted, but it's a start.

Generally speaking, I would prefer better attempts to combat misinformation with correct information, but it's also true that lies and misinformation travel faster and wider than correct information does, so it can be an uphill battle. Still, without knowing the exact nature of the misinformation and the pressure used, it's difficult to form an informed view of the situation.

But I do admit, I find it difficult to believe the incoming administration will do any better to combat this issue, or if they will do anything at all, so I'm not confident the problems will lessen. But I guess we'll see, won't we?

-- A2SG, but I do appreciate the work you did, so thank you....

 

[HARK!]

Okay, that's better. Still a bit light on some details, such as precisely what "pressure" was exerted, and the specific nature of the misinformation being targeted, but it's a start.

Well you can always go read the emails that are included in the report for the numerous specific details. Hopefully over 17,000 pages will be enough to satisfy your skepticism.

I have yet to read the whole report myself.

 

[NxNW]

We'll see whether or not the Justice Department agrees with your opinion.

I can't wait.

 

[HARK!]

I can't wait.

Exciting times.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's a weird way of describing burying Hunter's shady business deals, and election interference.

This isn't a thread about the incoming president's indictment for election interference.
And we all know how many time the GOP has tried to find evidence of these alleged shady business deals, only to come up empty. A preview for the success rate of the incoming president, I'd imagine.