Social Media

Tiffany Trump: ‘Thoughts, Opinions,’ Votes Are ‘Manipulated’ by Media, Big Tech

Tiffany Trump, President Donald Trump’s youngest daughter, said Tuesday night at the Republican National Convention (RNC) that people have to recognize they are being “manipulated” by the media and big tech. “People must recognize that our thoughts, opinions, and even the choice of who we vote for are being manipulated and invisibly coerced by the media and tech giants,” Tiffany Trump said. “If you tune into the media, you get one biased opinion or another. And if what you share does not fit into the narrative they seek to promote, then it is either ignored or deemed a “lie,” regardless of the truth. This manipulation of what information we receive impedes our freedoms,” she added. Tiffany said that this system of “misinformation” causes “fear” and “divisiveness” among people who are robbed of their right to form their own opinions and beliefs on subjects. The recent law school graduate noted that although this generation is facing an uncertain future, she urged people this election season to “transcend political boundaries” in a fight to keep America true to its values and make choices on “results and not rhetoric.” She urged Americans to “seek out the truth and learn from those with different opinions” before forming their own opinions and look beyond what other politicians say. “I implore you to see beyond the façade that so many other politicians employ. They mask themselves in disguises of decency, as they try to pressure us to mask our own identities and beliefs,” she said. “My father is the only person to challenge the establishment, the entrenched bureaucracy, big pharma, and media monopolies to ensure that Americans’ constitutional freedoms are upheld and that justice and truth prevail,” Tiffany added.

Way to go Tiffany!  To see this speech she gave at the RNC convention, click on the text above.  If you’re a senior in high school, in college, or a recent grad, you’ll relate to what Tiffany says here.  She nails it!!  Excellent!    🙂

Greg Gutfeld: Share the risk – How to end cancel culture, for good

After spending a segment on “The Five” debunking the “fine people” hoax perpetrated by Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in his acceptance speech at the convention last week, some nobody on Twitter (Tim Miller, who works for Bulwark, which I believe is a knitting circle for failed consultants), claimed that I had a “racist mentor.” So in one tweet, he was able to falsely incriminate me as part of a racist cabal, while smearing any number of people I’ve worked with (I’ve had a few great mentors in my life, luckily – none of them racist). Now, at this point, you (or I) can go two ways. We can ignore a troll, and assume such accusations will fade. Which can happen. But in this era, you can’t rely on that anymore. When someone calls you racist, you need to fight back. So, I did. I demanded he retract the slander. (You can find my tweets here.) When I confronted the smear merchant, he desperately and lamely tried to defend himself, without assuming culpability. I wouldn’t have it. I kept the pressure on and I enlisted others to help me. I asked that my friends and fans “share the risk.” Because that’s the only way to defeat cancel culture. As the cowardly writer started to experience the overwhelming wrath of decent-minded people calling him out, he deleted the inflammatory attack – but not without claiming he did so, only because it became a hassle. Which is the point. To get cowards like him to stop wielding loaded terms and inflammatory smears that incite violence, you must make it a hassle. That is the point. It’s applying the logic of MAD, or mutually assured destruction, to the clowns behind cancel culture. The only reason the troll came after me in the first place, is because there was no hassle involved – in fact, there’s a low barrier to entry in the cancellation Olympics. He thought he could call me racist, and get away with it – and if I ignored it, he would have been right. Instead, I came with guns blazing – thereby raising the stakes for his smears – so that he realized that, yes, it should truly become a hassle once you falsely accuse someone of racism! Duh! MAD worked! There has never been a more important time to share the risk than right now. When a friend or even a foe, comes under fire – it’s up to all of us to step up and defend each other. In short, we all must share the risk, so the Bulwark ghouls and others like them learn quickly that they’re about to make a huge investment when they wrongly smear people. Making them pay (literally or metaphorically) is the only way to teach them a lesson. THAT is the solution to cancel culture. Fact is, those who accuse you of non-criminal acts in public, do so to ruin you in the public square. And they do this to scare you into compliance – painting targets on your back, and the backs of your family. Without a challenge, they will continue to harass, smear and cancel you – as they not-so-subtly encourage violence to head in your direction. If we do not join together and turn our collective power toward the smear gremlins (again, sharing that risk), the gremlins win. When someone you know, or even don’t know, is falsely smeared, you must defend them. Raising the possibility of swift and brutal punishment in the public square will likely cause all canceling cowards (who initiate this fight) to scamper away (like the Bulwark one did with me). It’s a way to silence the silencer – to instill fear in those who wish to instill fear in you. If you don’t understand this yet, trust me, one day soon, you will.e

Indeed..  Well said, Greg.  As usual, Greg Gutfeld nails it with his dry wit and sarcasm.  The so-called “cancel culture” is a plague and a cancer in our society.  Glad to see him fight back and not take it.  Thanks Greg!!    🙂

Facebook, Twitter Censor President Trump’s Fox News Interview

Facebook and Twitter censored a video clip of President Donald Trump’s recent interview on Fox News’ Fox & Friends over alleged coronavirus “misinformation.” Facebook said it removed the video of the interview because President Trump claimed that children have heightened immunity to coronavirus. The Trump campaign stands by this claim, but Facebook disagrees, and used it as an excuse to prevent American citizens using the platform from hearing what their president has to say. This is despite repeated assurances from Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg that the platform will not censor politicians. In a speech at Georgetown University in October 2019, Zcukberg said “we think people should be able to hear what politicians have to say.” It seems policy has now changed at Facebook, which is now censoring what the President is saying. “This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from Covid-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful Covid misinformation,” said Facebook spokesman Andy Stone in a statement attempting to justify the takedown. Twitter quickly followed Facebook’s lead, taking down the video, which had been posted by an official Trump campaign account, shortly after Facebook took action. In a statement, Courtney Parella slammed Facebook for its censorship of the President. “Social media companies are not the arbiters of truth, said Parella. According to Parella, Trump was “stating a fact that children are less susceptible to the coronavirus.” Using the Chinese virus as a justification, social media platforms have over the past few months taken unprecedented steps to censor the President, his supporters, and conservative media. Last week, Facebook censored a viral video posted by Breitbart News of an organization of medical professionals, America’s Frontline Doctors, holding a press conference on coronavirus alongside Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC). Other tech giants once again followed Facebook’s lead, including Twitter, which deleted Breitbart News’ post and locked it out of its account for over four days.

More of the same from liberal social media outlets Facebook, Twitter, Google, and so on..  And this despite their assurances just last week to Congress that they wouldn’t do just this.  It’s beyond outrageous.  The Justice Department (DOJ) should consider investigating these companies for election tampering…which is exactly what they’re doing.  They know they have a monopoly on the way voters get their info.  And, they’re knowingly interfering with a presidential candidate’s ability to communicate in an election year.  If that’s not election tampering, I don’t know what is.  For now, here are a couple official sites you can use to get around the liberal media.  The official Trump 2020 web site is:  http://www.donaldjtrump.com     and the official White House web site is:   www.whitehouse.gov    Of course, if you have Facebook, and want to go there knowing that they censor the sitting President of the United States..  Then, hey..  That site is:  https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/

Greg Gutfeld on social media study: ‘People who use social media the most are the worst people in the universe’

Greg Gutfeld took on social media Wednesday in the wake of a new study that finds Facebook and Snapchat’s “heaviest users” tend to be more “cruel” than people in the real world. “It’s true, people who use social media the most are the worst people in the universe. A new study tracking Snapchat and Facebook use found that the heaviest users tend to enjoy upsetting and embarrassing other people and are motivated by cruelty and personal gain,” Gutfeld said on “The Five.” “Sounds about right. When I get off social media, I rarely feel better than I did when I got on it. Perhaps it’s because we not only run into creeps more frequently there, we also can’t control the encounters.” The study from Michigan State University and California State University at Fullerton tracked the usage of 472 university students, 18-to-24-year olds, on the platforms. Gutfeld looked at the positive aspect of the study, saying “the outside world is indeed a better place than the net.” “But in general, all people are better here than online,” Gutfeld said, taking a shot at Portland which continues to deal with violent protests. “Plus, far more of them are wearing clothes. We do ourselves no good to think Twitter reflects planet Earth.” The co-host slammed politicians and members of the media for using Twitter as a reflection of how society feels. “Politicians view Twitter as an instant poll. If they see extremism online, they move there. Twitter becomes their GPS.. The media does the same thing,” Gutfeld said. “It’s The New York Times entire profit model. Today’s tweet by a pink-haired nut becomes tomorrow’s editorial. And young minds find themselves more affected by opinions of online strangers than their loving parents.” Gutfeld reflected on the study’s results, speculating it has had an impact on America’s current unrest. “Maybe that’s why so many young, unstable, unemployed adults find joy in destroying property, communities, careers, lives and ultimately themselves. They get a high. They get a head start online. Then on the street, they letter in vandalism and arson,” Gutfeld said. “Of course, suggesting you should avoid social media doesn’t mean it will avoid you turning it off. Doesn’t make the mob disappear. If everyone else, including your employer, takes them seriously until that stops, we’re totally screwed.”

As usual, Greg nails it with his outside-the-box perspective.  To see the video of this “Gregologue,” click on the text above.  Thanks Greg!      🙂

Opinion/Analysis: Donald Trump Is Defending the First Amendment; Joe Biden Is Attacking It

President Donald Trump’s executive order on Thursday cracking down on social media censorship stirred protests from the usual quarters. Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that Trump’s order is “an extreme abuse of power” and “demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the role and function of the federal government.” The opposite is true. Trump’s executive order is well-founded in the principles of the First Amendment and stays well within existing law. The order tackles the thorny problem of selective censorship by platforms that, while privately owned, have become the public spaces of our digital era. At a moment when most of us are literally prohibited from gathering physically in large numbers, due to coronavirus restrictions, the only spaces in which we can exercise our First Amendment rights meaningfully are online. And the companies that own those spaces have monopoly power; there are few alternatives. There is nothing in the executive order that violates those companies’ right — under the First Amendment — to say, or exclude, what they want. But it enforces the terms of the special exemption that those companies have enjoyed from the libel laws that apply to everyone else. It also emphasizes the government’s own right not to advertise on platforms that practice censorship. And the order holds those companies to their own terms of service, reporting instances of bias. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The moment social media companies begin policing ordinary opinions — or “fact-checking” matters very much in dispute — they cease to become mere platforms and become publishers, as vulnerable to libel laws as any ordinary person is. Twitter’s extraordinary intervention this week in slapping a fact-check warning on President Trump’s tweets about California’s plan for mail-in voting was not only factually incorrect itself, but also premature. Two separate lawsuits were filed in the past few days challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom’s authority to send mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters. Twitter’s “fact check” was just another statement of opinion. It has no special claim to immunity. Trump’s executive order on social media censorship follows the pattern of a similar order last year about free speech on college campuses. In that case, Trump insisted on “compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions.” He directed federal agencies to make sure “institutions that receive Federal research or education grants” upheld free speech principles. That executive order was constitutional, and so is the new one. It does not dictate to private institutions what they can and cannot say, or exclude. But it removes the sense that they are entitled to federal money and regulatory shelter. It is Biden who seems not to understand free speech and the Constitution. In his statement Thursday evening, Biden complained that “President Trump believes that he should be permitted to say whatever he would like, regardless whether it is true or false.” Of course he can, within the boundaries of the law. So can anyone. That is precisely what the First Amendment is about. It protects Biden’s lies about the NAACP just as much as it protects Trump’s tweets. Biden does not understand that. And on the question of social media companies, he cannot help contradicting himself. On the one hand, he says that private companies should not be required to “provide a venue for, and amplification of, the President’s falsehoods.” In the same paragraph, Biden says that the same private companies “should be held accountable” for content they allow to be disseminated on their platforms that he deems “false.” So — which is it? Amazingly, Biden is running against the First Amendment. Like Hillary Clinton before him, he rejects the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United (2010), which protected the free speech of corporations. In his platform, Biden calls for a constitutional amendment to reverse that decision. He has a poor record on free speech generally: the Obama-Biden administration even backed a proposal at the United Nations by Muslim nations to restrict “blasphemy.” Trump’s rhetoric on this issue, as on others, is combative and over-the-top: he cannot “close … down” social media companies. Yet his actions, as usual, not only obey the Constitution, but also reinforce it. Biden would do the opposite.

Exactly!!  And well said, Joel.  Joel B. Pollak is the author of that spot-on op/ed.  For more, scroll down, and read the next article written by Jim Hanson, a former U.S. Army Special Forces operator.

Jim Hanson: Trump’s social media executive order is justified – protects free speech, combats censorship

President Trump was right and justified Thursday to sign an executive order calling for new regulations to strip legal liability protections from social media companies that censor posts and engage in political conduct on their sites. I hope the president never has to take action against any social media company. The solution to the very real problem of social media company discrimination – which most often is directed against conservative views – is to end the discrimination, rather than for the government to intervene. However, President Trump and many conservatives have identified a serious problem. Twitter and some other social media companies want to be two things at the same time: common carriers where anyone can post comments, and news organizations that selectively fact-check some posts and determine which ones are accurate and which ones are not. Making such determinations is an editorial decision that is often very subjective. Right now social media companies enjoy protection from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for what is posted on their sites, because in most cases they allow people to post whatever they wish – as if they were posting on a giant virtual bulletin board. In contrast, news organizations can be sued for libel if they publish false information with “’actual malice’ – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” according to a 1964 Supreme Court decision in the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. On average more than 500 million tweets are posted each day. It would be impossible for Twitter to review each of these tweets and fact-check them all before posting. Other social media companies face a similar impossible task. However, Twitter has selectively targeted conservatives – most recently President Trump this week – and has either taken down their tweets or labeled them as misleading and added a fact check, as was the case with two of the president’s tweets dealing with problems with mail-in voting. Ironically, the president’s tweets saying voter fraud can take place with mail-in voting were accurate. Twitter’s fact check claiming that the president’s tweets were factually inaccurate was itself inaccurate. What is crucial here is that by deciding to selectively review a tiny number of tweets on its site and running supposed fact checks on them, Twitter is exercising editorial judgment and deciding what people are told is true. Even Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, told Fox News’ Dana Perino that social media companies should not act as the “arbiter of truth.” President Trump’s executive order states that social media companies that remove or restrict content should be exposed to liability “like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.” Will Twitter now fact-check every tweet by former Vice President Joe Biden and every Democratic elected official in the nation? Will it fact check every tweet critical of President Trump? Obviously not. But by selectively running a fact check (which was actually inaccurate) on Trump’s tweets, Twitter abandoned all pretense of being an unbiased common carrier. Social media companies should be like trains that allow anyone to board. As common carriers they should allow any ideas to be transported on their platforms without selecting which ones are permitted. Once the companies start picking and choosing among the ideas, they should lose their status and liability protection as common carriers. Telephone companies are appropriately designated as common carriers. You can call anyone you want and say anything you want without exposing the phone company to liability for what you say. While a caller can be held liable for what he or she says on the phone – such as making a death threat, or plotting a terrorist attack – the phone company cannot be held liable because it does not censor calls. President Trump’s executive order doesn’t restrict speech or require Twitter, Facebook or other social media companies to publish any particular speech. It focuses on whether the companies act as publishers exercising editorial control or simply as unbiased platforms for content created by users. The order also asks federal agencies to evaluate whether the companies are applying their terms of service in ways that do not match the published terms of service. There is plenty of evidence showing that social media companies treat ideas and accounts differently based on political and ideological affiliation. The executive order calls for the Federal Trade Commission and a consortium of state attorneys general led by the U.S. attorney general to examine whether the actual practices of the social media companies are deceptive. The president’s executive order is a shot across the bow of the major social media firms. The order is an attempt to address the longstanding concern of many on the political right that the liberal activist nature of most social media company employees and the companies themselves has unfairly damaged conservative ideas and accounts. The companies deny they act in a biased manner, but they have been caught doing so in the past. During the 2018 midterm elections Twitter was exposed for shadow-banning conservative accounts, thereby limiting their reach to a much smaller audience. This affected Republican officeholders and candidates, but was not applied to their Democratic opponents. Twitter initially denied this, but was eventually confronted with enough evidence that it had to remove the “quality filter” it had imposed that was causing this problem. President Trump announced he was considering all options such as the ones in the executive order during a Social Media Summit at the White House last July that I attended. There are several other aspects of social media company operations not called for in the executive order that could come under scrutiny in the future. One is an investigation by the Federal Election Commission into whether unfair treatment of Republican accounts compared to Democratic accounts amounts to an in-kind contribution by the social media companies to the advantaged campaign. The Federal Trade Commission could also look at the potential monopoly of the public information space by a handful of social media companies. President Trump has been clear that he does not want to trade the control now exercised by the tech firms for the unsubtle hand of a government overseer. But the social media censorship of our shared public information space in a way that discriminates against some ideas is an intolerable situation. Let’s hope the social media companies take the hint and change their ways.

I wouldn’t hold your breath, Jim..  Jim Hanson is the author of that piece.  He is President of Security Studies Group and served in US Army Special Forces.

Dr. Fauci endorses Tinder hookups ‘if you’re willing to take a risk’

Tired of having to live your sex life online during lockdown? You’re in luck. Government coronavirus expert Dr. Anthony Fauci says that heartsick isolationists can hook up with asymptomatic Tinder matches in real life — but, like love, it involves some risk. The 79-year-old immunologist dropped the unorthodox dating tip in a Tuesday interview on Snapchat’s “Good Luck America.” Toward the end of the taped segment, Fauci was asked: “If you’re swiping on a dating app like Tinder, or Bumble or Grindr, and you match with someone that you think is hot, and you’re just kind of like, ‘Maybe it’s fine if this one stranger comes over.’ What do you say to that person?” “You know that’s tough,” replied the befuddled National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director to the curveball. “Because that’s what’s called relative risk.” Then he dropped the bombshell. “If you’re willing to take a risk — and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks — you could figure out if you want to meet somebody,” said Fauci, who was named a candidate for People magazine’s “Sexiest Man Alive” award. He added, “If you want to go a little bit more intimate, well, then that’s your choice regarding a risk.”

People Magazine thinks this short, nerdy 79-year doctor is a “candidate for Sexiest Man alive?”  Wow..  I must be living in an alternate reality/universe.  No wonder People Magazine is sold with the other worthless rags in the checkout lane at your grocery store.  As for the advice from the good doctor?  Seems like basic common sense to me…if you’re willing to take such a risk.     🙂

Biden mocked after apparent teleprompter issue during coronavirus remarks: ‘Let me go to the second thing’

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was mocked on Monday after the gaffe-prone 2020 Democratic front-runner appeared to lose his train of thought when his teleprompter malfunctioned during remarks on the coronavirus pandemic. Biden’s remarks, livestreamed from a studio set up in his home, began with his touching his face despite ongoing warnings not to do that during the coronavirus pandemic. His remarks were also short compared with the president’s near-daily coronavirus briefings, lasting less than 15 minutes in total, and featured a clear teleprompter issue that became a social media punchline. The former vice president was detailing his plan to fight the coronavirus crisis, but appeared to lose track of his place on the teleprompter. Biden signaled to his staff that there was something wrong, before going off on an awkward ad-lib. “And, in addition to that, in addition to that we have to make sure that we, we are in a position that we are, well met me go the second thing, I’ve spoken enough on that,” Biden said before going on to speak about the aggressive action he would like Trump to take under the Defense Production Act. “Joe Biden when the teleprompter stops working is a train wreck,” social media strategist Caleb Hull wrote. Biden — who had been oddly silent during the pandemic until Monday — covered a range of topics including what he would do if he were in the Oval Office and the lessons that can be learned from governors’ actions to fight the coronavirus – but some viewers harped on the blunders. “What a disaster,” GOP spokesperson Elizabeth Harrington wrote. “Biden has had plenty of time to think about this, and he can’t even figure out what to say without help from a teleprompter.”

Yeah..   Joe IS a disaster.  When he’s not debating a fellow liberal like Bernie (and can just spout decades-ingrained liberal talking points ad nauseum), or (more importantly) not reading from teleprompter, he’s a gaffe-machine.  That’s ok.  We VERY much look forward to Trump debating him later in the year.  It’ll be a hoot!  Bring the popcorn.    🙂

Gutfeld on tweeting while wasted

A new study by New York University finds that a third of the people who get high post on social media while under the influence. And a large portion said they regretted their intoxicated actions. I like this study because I am this study. Many times I would tweet something rude after that third glass of wine. And the next day, regret the tweet, not the wine. I learned over time that I had to cut back on one or the other. So out went the wine, in came the vodka. But we’re missing the good news. The study isn’t about the destruction caused behind the wheel of a car — it’s now about the embarrassment caused in front of your smartphone screen. Wikipedia told me that between 1991 and 2017, the rate of drunk driving fatalities has decreased 46 percent nationally, and 68 percent among those under age 21. So we find ourselves no longer steering into lamp posts; instead we steer humiliating posts about our stupid thoughts, activities and selves into a ravenous public, who happily seek another opportunity to dance on our shame. Writer P.J. O’Rourke once called booze “liquid idiot,” but our tweets are “digital dumb.” Which is better? Nobody ever drove a tweet into oncoming traffic and wiped out a family of five. So consider it progress that more people are dying from embarrassment than internal injuries. If more high people are wrecking themselves online than on the road, that’s a win for all of us. We should all drink to that. In moderation, of course! And certainly not near Twitter.

Well said, Greg!  That was adapted from Greg Gutfeld’s monologue on “The Five” on Aug. 19, 2019. Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET).  Excellent!!    🙂

Alex Jones, InfoWars, ‘permanently suspended’ by Twitter

Twitter announced Thursday that it “permanently suspended” Alex Jones and his show InfoWars from their platform, as well as Periscope. The announcement came via tweet from Twitter Safety, who said the decision was made “based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accounts’ past violations.” It wasn’t immediately clear which tweets and videos Twitter was referring to. Jones, who has spread conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, has previously been banned from sites like Facebook and YouTube for violations of their terms of service. Facebook said it had removed four pages related to InfoWars for violating hate speech and bullying policies. Jones claims he is being politically targeted. In follow-up tweets, Twitter said they “wanted to be open about this action” due to public interest. “As we continue to increase transparency around our rules and enforcement actions, we wanted to be open about this action given the broad interest in this case. We do not typically comment on enforcement actions we take against individual accounts, for their privacy,” Twitter said. “We will continue to evaluate reports we receive regarding other accounts potentially associated with @realalexjones or @infowars and will take action if content that violates our rules is reported or if other accounts are utilized in an attempt to circumvent their ban.” Word of Jones’ fate on the social media platform came a day after he clashed with Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio after interrupting an interview. During Wednesday’s dust-up between Rubio and Jones, the lawmaker was recorded discussing with reporters his worries that China and other governments could demand social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter crackdown on dissidents. The conversation came prior to a Senate Intellgence Committe hearing. When Jones approached, he accused Democrats of “doing what you say China does” and said tech companies and Democrats are “purging” and shadow banning conservatives. The remarks led to an impassioned exchange of words between the pair, before Rubio ultimately went into the hearing.

Anyone who truly cares about free speech should be terrified after reading that.  Alex Jones isn’t the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree..and can be a complete tool.  The way he confronted Sen. Mario Rubio (R-FL) in the hall was obnoxious and low class…and that’s being nice.  But, Alex has just as much right to spout his conspiratorial nonsense, and obnoxiousness, as the next guy.  And, hey..  To be fair, every once in a rare while he, or his staff, uncover something actually newsworthy…worth actually reading.  In the interest of full disclosure, here at The Daily Buzz we’ve posted about a half dozen or so articles from the InfoWars site over the last 4.5 years we’ve been here.  Again, it’s been pretty rare.  But, it’s not about whether you agree with Alex, or anyone else for that matter.  It’s whether they have the right to voice their views like everyone else.  I mean c’mon..  We all have had to put up with idiots like Jerry Springer, and Maury, for decades.  How is this any different?  And,  while FaceBook and Twitter are private companies that have the right to censor anything they want..  They are also a bit of a monopoly on social media.  As such, Congress is taking a very hard look at social media and considering regulating them.  Also, it’s clear their platforms are not favorable to Republicans and conservatives.  So, there is that element as well which is another cause for concern. But, again, as it relates to Alex and InfoWars..  This is something that we should ALL be very concerned about, regardless of political party affiliation or persuasion…and not be so quick to cheer that Alex was shut down and censored.