Twitter

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/

Kayleigh McEnany: Twitter Targeting Donald Trump, Not China or Their Own Employees

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany criticized Twitter on Thursday for their bias in targeting supporters of President Donald Trump online. “I believe it is time to ‘get the facts’ about Twitter and other social media platforms targeting their bias against President Trump and conservatives online,” McEnany said during the White House press briefing on Thursday afternoon. She specifically pointed to Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity Yoel Roth who falsely claimed that there were “actual Nazis in the White House.” “No fact check label was ever applied to this absolutely outrageous, offensive, and false claim against the White House and its employees,” she said. She accused Twitter of creating a “false fact check” on President Donald Trump’s tweet warning of voter fraud in California as a result of Democrats pushing vote-by-mail. She also called out Twitter for allowing the Chinese to use the platform to spread misinformation about the origin of the coronavirus, protests in Hong Kong, and persecution of religious minorities in China. She also took shots at Facebook and Google for allowing the Chinese government to censor search results and spread misinformation. “They appear to be very hastily eager to censor President Trump and some of his employees but a little reluctant when it comes to China — it’s a bit befuddling,” she said. She also cited censorship bias against the pro-life movement and allowing hate on their platform from leftists against the Covington High School students. “Liberals are allowed to cite violence against the Covington kids … and yet these individuals were allowed by Twitter to incite violence,” she said. “It’s disturbing to see, so those are some of the president’s concerns.” McEnany previewed President Trump’s upcoming executive order on tech and social media companies on Thursday afternoon, suggesting that it would demand companies to be transparent about the behind-the-scenes mechanisms used to censor conservatives.

Another epic smackdown of the liberal White House press corps by Kayleigh!  To see the video, click on the text above.   Excellent!!      🙂

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.

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!!    🙂

Rep. Billy Long, an auctioneer, drowns out protester shouting at Twitter’s Jack Dorsey during hearing

Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., on Wednesday drowned out a protester who was shouting at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey by using an auction call. Laura Loomer, a far-right activist, was heard shouting pleas at President Trump “because Jack Dorsey is trying to influence the election, to sway the election, to [inaudible] Democrats steal the election.” “That is why he is censoring and shadow banning conservatives,” she added. After Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., repeatedly called for Loomer to stand down in the hearing room, or else risk her removal, Loomer continued — which is when Long stepped in with a fast-talking auctioneer chant to drown her out. Long chanted for a few minutes as Capitol Police worked to remove Loomer from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce panel. “I yield back,” Long joked to audible laughter, as the protester was escorted from the room. The owner of Billy Long Auctions, LLC, Long worked as an auctioneer for 30 years in Missouri, according to his campaign site. He was also “voted best auctioneer in the Ozarks for seven years in a row.”

This is so great!!  If you missed this, click on the text above.   Excellent!!      🙂

Ann Coulter Tweet About Alleged Illegal Immigrant Rape Flagged as ‘Hate Speech’ by Twitter

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter had a tweet linking to a recent article flagged as “hate speech” by Twitter. Ann Coulter posted a link to a recent article on her website titled “To Say, ‘Stop Raping Me!’ In English, Press ‘1’ Now” on Twitter earlier this week. She added the comment, “Liberals are all for rape, provided that the penis forcibly inserted in you is attached to an illegal immigrant.” Coulter said she received an email from Twitter support informing her that the tweet had been flagged as violating Twitter’s hateful conduct policy. Coulter replied to the complaint by stating, “This warning is absolutely in error! It has obviously been generated by a computer because a human would read the linked column and find the proof that this tweet is completely, 100% truthful — fact by fact, in side-by-side cases. It is not a joke, not ‘hate,’ it is just the truth.” Twitter has a lengthy history of ignoring “hate speech” when it comes from those on the left, such as Ghostbusters (2016) actress Leslie Jones or rapper Talib Kweli, who called Breitbart News’ Jerome Hudson a “coon,” yet Coulter’s tweet was quickly flagged by the social media platform. Twitter’s warning email also noted, “if it is determined that the flagged content does not violate our hateful conduct policy, Twitter may still withhold content in Germany if the content appears to violate the laws of Germany.” In April, Germany’s Cabinet approved a bill that would fine social media sites like Twitter up to 50 million euros “if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content such as hate speech.”

Tony X. celebrated by St. Louis Blues at Game 3

Viral sensation Tony X. received a hero’s welcome at Scottrade Center on Tuesday. He mugged for photos, was videoed by the St. Louis Blues, shown on the jumbotron, and tweeted out a few observations from the contest. It was reportedly the first live NHL game for Anthony Holmes (aka Tony X. or @soloucity on Twitter) who became a social media hero during Game 7 of the Blues’ first-round series against the Chicago Blackhawks. Holmes became such a big deal that he was interviewed on Good Morning America. There, Blues vice president Brett Hull offered Holmes tickets to Tuesday night’s Game 3 between St. Louis and the Dallas Stars. The Blues paid tribute to Holmes at the first TV timeout, showing him on the jumbotron, which included one of his signature tweets from Game 7. Holmes also tweeted a photo from his seat before the start of the game. Also, it appeared that Holmes listened to the pleas of sniper Vladimir Tarasenko, asking him to wear Tarasenko’s No. 91. Following the game, a 6-1 win by the Blues, Holmes was thrilled with the outcome. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviewed Holmes at the game. “It’s been amazing, it’s kind of surreal,” Tony X said after the second period, with “his” Blues leading, 5-1. “I still can’t believe it’s happening, even though it’s happening right now. … I’ve taken more pictures tonight than I probably have in the last five years. … It’s 10 times even more than what I thought it would be — you’re right here and you can feel the vibrations when they hit against the glass.” Holmes did tweet out a question asking about power play rules. He also was entertained by enforcer Ryan Reaves, who blew a kiss at the Stars bench after a fight near the end of the game. St. Louis may need to bring Holmes back for Game 4 considering how well Game 3 went with him in the building.

Agreed!!  I was wondering who the heck this guy was, as the cameras kept panning to him during the game.  And to think.. St. Blues legend, and now vice president, Brett Hull gave him tickets!   The power of social media..  To see videos and photos of Tony X, click on the text above.   🙂

Gaffney: Shariah-Compliant Twitter

Twitter seems to think 2016 is 1984. It has welcomed in the New Year with a change in the rules governing all of its accounts that is reminiscent of Orwellian thought-control. Or at least that practiced by another, non-fictional totalitarian system: the Islamic supremacist program known as shariah. Shariah’s adherents demand that no offense be given to them, their religion, deity or prophet. Now, all other things being equal, they are close to ensuring that none will be forthcoming in 140 characters. If successful, contemporary Islamists will have achieved a major step towards a goal they have been pursuing through other means for nearly two decades: the worldwide prohibition of “defamation of religions” – read, Islam. In particular, since 2005, their proto-Caliphate – the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – has been working through the United Nations on a ten-year plan to impose this restraint concerning freedom of expression on the rest of us. In 2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited. In July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression. She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic strictures against offense-giving to Muslims. On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton famously declared her willingness “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” The message could not have been more clear to jihadists around the world: The United States was submitting to shariah blasphemy norms. According to shariah, the proper response is to redouble the effort to make the infidel “feel subdued.” That means, worse behavior from the Islamists, not better. Now, it seems that one of the greatest enablers of the global jihad, Saudi billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal, is seeing his substantial stake in Twitter stock translate into another breakthrough for Islamic supremacy: The suppression of Tweets that, according to the company’s new rule, involve “hate speech or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status.” To be sure Twitter is a private sector enterprise. It is, therefore, free to deny its services to those whose content it finds objectionable. At least, as long as it doesn’t try to deny service to approved “haters” like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This organization has deviated wildly from its early history as an effective advocate for civil liberties. Today, its invective-laced advocacy against individuals or organization who are supposed to enjoy “protected status” under our Constitution, namely that of citizens free to express themselves, can only be described as hate speech. Yet, the SPLC is embraced and even cited by the Obama administration and others among the leftists and Islamists who make up the “Red-Green axis” now feverishly working to silence any who they, as Hillary Clinton put it, “abhor.” (For more on this unlikely alliance, see Jim Simpson’s The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.) What is particularly concerning is that the new Twitter rule sounds a lot like what is coming out of the Obama administration these days. See, for example, the Justice Department’s “Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use Of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Or Gender Identity.” Speaking of the Justice Department, Americans who are inclined not to worry about losing the ability to Tweet their concerns about jihadism, shariah and anything else that might offend Muslims should bear in mind that Attorney General Loretta Lynch has put us all on notice that considerably worse may be in store for our First Amendment rights. Last month she told a Muslim Brotherhood-tied organization, Muslim Advocates: “Now, obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone…lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…When we see that, we will take action.” With Hillary Clinton’s prominent role in promoting restriction of free expression, and what appears to be accelerating momentum in the direction of ensuring conformity with shariah blasphemy restrictions, this would seem to be a good time for Republican presidential candidates – and the rest of us – to be expressing our adamant objections. If Twitter gets away with keeping us from doing it in 140 characters, we better make sure we do it otherwise, while we still can.

Agreed!  Thanks for raising awareness of this, Frank!  Frank Gaffney is the author of that excellent piece.  Pass it on to friends and family members!

Twitter account for US Central Command hacked, filled with pro-ISIS messages

The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was hacked on Monday and for several minutes carried incendiary messages promoting the Islamic State — including one that said, “AMERICAN SOLDIERS, WE ARE COMING, WATCH YOUR BACK. ISIS.”

Not good..  I’m curious if Obama (who is apparently having some conference on Cybersecurity, go figure) will use the term Islamic terrorism now.  Yeah, I’m not holding my breath either.  This story is developing..