Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Harvey » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:04 am

MSNBC Host Warns Of “Devastating Consequences” Of Free Speech

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Harvey » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:30 am

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Harvey » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 am

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitters- ... e-to-roost

Twitter's Chickens Come Home to Roost

The Great Elon Musk panic of 2022 is revealing a big fat boatload of blue-check hypocrites

Matt Taibbi, Apr 14

Elon Musk has reportedly attempted to purchase Twitter, and I have no idea whether his influence on the company would be positive or not.

I do know, however, what other media figures think Musk’s influence on Twitter will be. They think it will be bad — very bad, bad! How none of them see what a self-own this is is beyond me. After spending the last six years practically turgid with joy as other unaccountable billionaires tweaked the speech landscape in their favor, they’re suddenly howling over the mere rumor that a less censorious fat cat might get to sit in one of the big chairs. O the inhumanity!

A few of the more prominent Musk critics are claiming merely to be upset at the prospect of wealthy individuals controlling speech. As more than one person has pointed out, this is a bizarre thing to be worrying about all of the sudden, since it’s been the absolute reality in America for a while.





Probably the funniest effort along those lines was this passage:

We need regulation… to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.


That was Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit, railing against Musk in the pages of… the Washington Post! A newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos complaining about rich people controlling “channels of communication” just might be the never-released punchline of Monty Python’s classic “Funniest Joke in the World” skit.

Many detractors went the Pao route, suddenly getting religious about concentrated wealth having control over the public discourse. In a world that had not yet gone completely nuts, that is probably where the outrage campaign would have ended, since the oligarchical control issue could at least be a legitimate one, if printed in a newspaper not owned by Jeff Bezos.

However, they didn’t stop there. Media figures everywhere are openly complaining that they dislike the Musk move because they’re terrified he will censor people less. Bullet-headed neoconservative fussbudget Max Boot was among the most emphatic in expressing his fear of a less-censored world:

Max Boot @MaxBoot

I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.

April 14th 2022



In every newsroom I’ve ever been around, there’s always one sad hack who’s hated by other reporters but hangs on to a job because he whispers things to management and is good at writing pro-war editorials or fawning profiles of Ari Fleischer or Idi Amin or other such distasteful media tasks. Even that person would never have been willing to publicly say something as gross as, “For democracy to survive, it needs more censorship”! A professional journalist who opposed free speech was not long ago considered a logical impossibility, because the whole idea of a free press depended upon the absolute right to be an unpopular pain in the ass.

Things are different now, of course, because the bulk of journalists no longer see themselves as outsiders who challenge official pieties, but rather as people who live inside the rope-lines and defend those pieties. I’m guessing this latest news is arousing special horror because the current version of Twitter is the professional journalist’s idea of Utopia: a place where Donald Trump doesn’t exist, everyone with unorthodox thoughts is warning-labeled (“age-restricted” content seems to be a popular recent scam), and the Current Thing is constantly hyped to the moronic max. The site used to be fun, funny, and a great tool for exchanging information. Now it feels like what the world would be if the eight most vile people in Brooklyn were put in charge of all human life, a giant, hyper-pretentious Thought-Starbucks.

My blue-checked friends in media worked very hard to create this thriving intellectual paradise, so of course they’re devastated to imagine that a single rich person could even try to walk in and upend the project. Couldn’t Musk just leave Twitter in the hands of responsible, speech-protecting shareholders like Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal?
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:33 pm

.
Specific to the Science arena, but clearly applicable. Note the published date: 2018, prior to the madness of 2019 - onward.

The Scientific Importance of Free Speech

ADAM PERKINS - 13 APR 2018

Editor’s note: this is a shortened version of a speech that the author was due to give last month at King’s College London which was canceled because the university deemed the event to be too ‘high risk’.

A quick Google search suggests that free speech is a regarded as an important virtue for a functional, enlightened society. For example, according to George Orwell: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Likewise, Ayaan Hirsi Ali remarked: “Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society, and yes, it includes the right to blaspheme and offend.” In a similar vein, Bill Hicks declared: “Freedom of speech means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with”.

But why do we specifically need free speech in science? Surely we just take measurements and publish our data? No chit chat required. We need free speech in science because science is not really about microscopes, or pipettes, or test tubes, or even Large Hadron Colliders. These are merely tools that help us to accomplish a far greater mission, which is to choose between rival narratives, in the vicious, no-holds-barred battle of ideas that we call “science”.

Image
Marshall and Warren, 1984

For example, stomach problems such as gastritis and ulcers were historically viewed as the products of stress. This opinion was challenged in the late 1970s by the Australian doctors Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, who suspected that stomach problems were caused by infection with the bacteria Helicobacter pylori. Frustrated by skepticism from the medical establishment and by difficulties publishing his academic papers, in 1984, Barry Marshall appointed himself his own experimental subject and drank a Petri dish full of H. pylori culture. He promptly developed gastritis which was then cured with antibiotics, suggesting that H. pylori has a causal role in this type of illness. You would have thought that given this clear-cut evidence supporting Warren and Marshall’s opinion, their opponents would immediately concede defeat. But scientists are only human and opposition to Warren and Marshall persisted. In the end it was two decades before their crucial work on H. pylori gained the recognition it deserved, with the award of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Image
German physicist Max Planck

From this episode we can see that even in situations where laboratory experiments can provide clear evidence in favour of a particular scientific opinion, opponents will typically refuse to accept it. Instead scientists tend cling so stubbornly to their pet theories that no amount of evidence will change their minds and only death can bring an end to the argument, as famously observed by Max Planck:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.


It is a salutary lesson that even in a society that permits free speech, Warren and Marshall had difficulty publishing their results. If their opponents had the legal power to silence them their breakthrough would have taken even longer to have become clinically accepted and even more people would have suffered unnecessarily with gastric illness that could have been cured quickly and easily with a course of antibiotics. But scientific domains in which a single experiment can provide a definitive answer are rare. For example, Charles Darwin’s principle of evolution by natural selection concerns slow, large-scale processes that are unsuited to testing in a laboratory. In these cases, we take a bird’s eye view of the facts of the matter and attempt to form an opinion about what they mean.

This allows a lot of room for argument, but as long as both sides are able to speak up, we can at least have a debate: when a researcher disagrees with the findings of an opponent’s study, they traditionally write an open letter to the journal editor critiquing the paper in question and setting out their counter-evidence. Their opponent then writes a rebuttal, with both letters being published in the journal with names attached so that the public can weigh up the opinions of the two parties and decide for themselves whose stance they favour. I recently took part in just such an exchange of letters in the elite journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences. The tone is fierce and neither side changed their opinions, but at least there is a debate that the public can observe and evaluate.

The existence of scientific debate is also crucial because as the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman remarked in 1963: “There is no authority who decides what is a good idea.” The absence of an authority who decides what is a good idea is a key point because it illustrates that science is a messy business and there is no absolute truth. This was articulated in Tom Schofield’s posthumously published essay in which he wrote:
[S]cience is not about finding the truth at all, but about finding better ways of being wrong. The best scientific theory is not the one that reveals the truth — that is impossible. It is the one that explains what we already know about the world in the simplest way possible, and that makes useful predictions about the future. When I accepted that I would always be wrong, and that my favourite theories are inevitably destined to be replaced by other, better, theories — that is when I really knew that I wanted to be a scientist.

When one side of a scientific debate is allowed to silence the other side, this is an impediment to scientific progress because it prevents bad theories being replaced by better theories. Or, even worse, it causes civilization to go backward, such as when a good theory is replaced by a bad theory that it previously displaced. The latter situation is what happened in the most famous illustration of the dire consequences that can occur when one side of a scientific debate is silenced. This occurred in connection with the theory that acquired characteristics are inherited. This idea had been out of fashion for decades, in part due to research in the 1880s by August Weismann. He conducted an experiment that entailed amputating the tails of 68 white mice, over 5 generations. He found that no mice were born without a tail or even with a shorter tail. He stated: “901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormality in this organ.”

These findings and others like them led to the widespread acceptance of Mendelian genetics. Unfortunately for the people of the USSR, Mendelian genetics are incompatible with socialist ideology and so in the 1930s USSR were replaced with Trofim Lysenko’s socialism-friendly idea that acquired characteristics are inherited. Scientists who disagreed were imprisoned or executed. Soviet agriculture collapsed and millions starved.

Henceforth the tendency to silence scientists with inconvenient opinions has been labeled Lysenkoism since it provides the most famous example of the harm that can be done when competing scientific opinions cannot be expressed equally freely. Left-wingers tend to be the most prominent Lysenkoists but the suppression of scientific opinions can occur in other contexts too. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 is a famous example.

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster happened because the rubber O-rings sealing the joints of the booster rockets became stiff at low temperatures. This design flaw meant that in cold weather, such as the −2 °C of Challenger launch day, a blowtorch-like flame could travel past the O-ring and make contact with the adjacent external fuel tank, causing it to explode. The stiffness of the O-rings at low temperatures was well known to the engineers who built the booster rockets and they consequently advised that the launch of Challenger should be postponed until temperatures rose to safe levels. Postponing the launch would have been an embarrassment and so the engineers were overruled. The launch therefore went ahead in freezing temperatures and, just as the engineers feared, Challenger exploded, causing the death of all seven crew members.

NASA’s investigation into the Challenger disaster was initially secretive, as if to conceal the fact that the well-known O-ring problem was the cause. However, the physicist Richard Feynman was a member of the committee and refused to be silenced. At a televised hearing he demonstrated that the O-rings became stiff when dunked in iced water. In the report on the disaster he concluded that ‘For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.’

Today, there are many reasons to be concerned over the state of free speech, from the growing chill on university campuses to the increased policing of art forms such as literature and film. Discussion of scientific topics on podcasts has also attracted the ire of petty Lysenkoists. But there is also cause for optimism, as long as we stand up for the principle that no one has the right to police our opinions. As Christopher Hitchens remarked. “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”


Adam Perkins is a Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Personality at Kings College London and is the author of the book The Welfare Trait: how state benefits affect personality. Follow him on Twitter @AdamPerkinsPhD

https://quillette-com.cdn.ampproject.or ... peech/amp/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Apr 28, 2022 4:52 pm

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:06 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:13 pm

Biden's New "Disinformation" Chief Nina Jankowicz Claims That Online Attacks on Kamala Harris Threaten Our Very Democracy.

And she just deleted all her tweets before 2022.

Caitlin Johnstone: Oh God It's Going To Get SO Much Worse

Rightists have spent the last couple of days freaking out and invoking Orwell's 1984 in response to something their political enemies are doing in America, and for once it's for a pretty good reason. The Department of Homeland Security has secretly set up a "Disinformation Governance Board", only informing the public about its plans for the institution after it had already been established.

The disinformation board, which critics have understandably been calling a "Ministry of Truth", purportedly exists to fight disinformation coming out of Russia as well as misleading messages about the US-Mexico border. We may be certain that the emphasis in the board's establishment has been on the Russia angle, however.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, in her patented "You're such a crazy idiot for questioning me about the White House" manner, dismissed alarmed questions about what specific functions this strange new DHS entity was going to be performing and what its authority will look like.

"It sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities," Psaki said. "I’m not sure who opposes that effort."

The answer to the question of "who opposes that effort" is of course "anyone with functioning gray matter between their ears." No government entity has any business appointing itself the authority to sort information from disinformation on behalf of the public, because government entities are not impartial and omniscient deities who can be entrusted to serve the public as objective arbiters of absolute reality. They would with absolute certainty wind up drawing distinctions between information, misinformation and disinformation in whatever way serves their interests, regardless of what's true, exactly as any authoritarian regime would do.

I mean, is anyone honestly more afraid of Russian disinformation than they are of their own government appointing itself the authority to decide what counts as disinformation?

This important point has gotten a bit lost in the shuffle due to the utterly hypnotic ridiculousness of the person who has been appointed to run the Disinformation Governance Board. Nina Jankowicz, a carefully groomed swamp creature who has worked in Kyiv as a communications advisor to the Ukrainian government as part of a Fulbright fellowship, is being widely criticized by pundits and social media users for her virulent Russiagating and whatever the hell this is:

https://twitter.com/wiczipedia/status/1 ... 7879303171

Because of this person's embarrassing cartoonishness, a lot more commentary lately has been going into discussing the fact that the Department of Homeland Security's Ministry of Truth is run by a kooky liberal than the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has a fucking Ministry of Truth.

Which is really to miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion. Would it really be any better if the "Disinformation Governance Board" was run by a chill dude you wouldn't mind having a beer with? Especially when we know the ideological leanings of this department are going to bounce back and forth between elections and will always act in service of US empire narrative control regardless of who is in office? I don't think so.

The real issue at hand is the fact that this new institution will almost certainly play a role in bridging the ever-narrowing gap between government censorship and Silicon Valley censorship. The creation of the DHS disinformation board is a far more shocking and frightening development than last year's scandalous revelation that the White House was advising social media platforms about accounts it determined were circulating censorship-worthy Covid misinformation, which was itself a drastic leap in the direction toward direct government censorship from what had previously been considered normal.

We should probably talk more about how as soon as people accepted that it was fine for government, media and Silicon Valley institutions to work together to censor misinformation and rally public support around an Official Narrative about a virus, the ruling power establishment immediately took that as license to do that with a war and a foreign government as well.

Like, immediately immediately. We went from a massive narrative control campaign about a virus, which people accepted because they wanted to contain a deadly pandemic, straight into a massive narrative control campaign about Russia and Ukraine. Without skipping a beat. Like openly manipulating everyone's understanding of world events is just what we do now. Now we're seeing increasingly brazen censorship of political dissent about a fucking war that could easily end up getting us all killed in a nuclear holocaust, and a portion of the Biden administration's whopping $33 billion Ukraine package is going toward funding "independent media" (read: war propaganda).

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1519710402518597633

We should probably talk more about this. We should probably talk more about how insane it is that all mainstream western institutions immediately accepted it as a given that World War II levels of censorship and propaganda must be implemented over a faraway war that our governments are not even officially a part of.

It started as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine, without any public discussion whatsoever. Like the groundwork had already been laid and everyone had already agreed that that's what would happen. The public had no say in whether we want to be propagandized and censored to help the US win some kind of weird infowar to ensure its continued unipolar domination of the planet. It just happened.

No reason was given to the public as to why this must occur, and there was no public debate as to whether it should. This was by design, because propaganda only works when you don't know it's happening to you.

The choice was made for us that information is too important to be left in the hands of the people. It became set in stone that we are to be a propaganda-based society rather than a truth-based society. No discussion was offered, and no debate was allowed.

https://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1 ... 1851037696

And as bad as it is, it's on track to get much, much worse. They're already setting up "disinformation" regulation in the government which presides over Silicon Valley, the proxy war between the US and Ukraine is escalating by the day, and aggressions are ramping up against China over both the Solomon Islands and Taiwan. If you think imperial narrative management is intense now, wait until the US empire's struggle to secure global hegemony really gets going.

Do you consent to this? Do you? It's something you kind of have to take a position on, because its implications have a direct effect on our lives as individuals and on our trajectory as a society. How much are we willing to sacrifice to help the US win an infowar against Russia?

The question of whether we should abandon all hope of ever becoming a truth-based society and committing instead to winning propaganda wars for a globe-spanning empire is perhaps the most consequential decision we've ever had to make as a species. Which is why we weren't given a choice. It's just been foisted upon us.

Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. By taking our control of information out of our hands without asking our permission and determining for us that we are to be a propaganda-based civilization for the foreseeable future, they have stolen something sacred from us. Something they had no right to take.

Nothing about the state of the world tells us that the people who run things are doing a good job. Nothing about our current situation suggests they should be given more control, rather than having control taken away from them and given to the people. We are going in exactly the wrong direction.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:27 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun May 01, 2022 3:25 pm

.
How can satire exist when the above is part of "reality"? That's part of the objective, isn't it?


Image
Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby stickdog99 » Sun May 01, 2022 8:42 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby stickdog99 » Sun May 01, 2022 8:51 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon May 02, 2022 3:40 pm

Twitter Has Permanently Suspended My Account

The *offending* post was not what I expected

E.Woodhouse

Twitter permanently suspended my account on Saturday, simultaneous to locking it over a tweet I posted on April 21, 2022.

“After careful review,” it was determined that I “broke the Twitter rules” — namely, “violating [their] policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.”

Image

I still have read-only access to my account in the Twitter app, which shows the *offending* tweet is now labeled “Misleading”.

Image

Let’s take a closer look…

The *Offending* Post

The *offending* post is the second in a 2-tweet thread. In the first tweet, I quote-tweeted a thread from the American Academy of Pediatrics, in which the organization advocates continued use toddler-masking until the age 0-4 vaccine receives an EUA.

Image

I shared my distrust of pediatricians as whole, resulting from what I believe many (but not all) have done during the pandemic.

I later added a tweet from Lawyer Mom (@legallymom2) that, in my opinion and based on current data, is an example of a pediatrician’s dishonesty about the risk of Covid infection versus vaccine-induced myocarditis in teen boys. Her post is a QT of Dr. Tracy Hoeg’s excellent overview (https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/statu ... 76608?s=20) of a recently-published study on that topic.

@legallymom2

Nothing to see here. I asked my Pediatrican 1000x about myocarditis risk in teen boys and was told repeatedly that the risk was far greater from infection. Now we know not only is that not true, but the vaccines don’t (and didn’t in my teen boys) prevent infection
@TracyBethHoeg
Massive Nordic study finds risk of post-vaccination
myo/pericarditis resulting in hospitalization in males 16-24 of 380/million (1/2600) post pfizer-moderna combination
This is 28x higher than the 13.7/million rate they found post-covid
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaca ... le/2791253


https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/statu ... an0Tg2tB5w

As far as I know, neither of these tweets was reported, and both are still posted.

Fourth Strike, You’re Out?

This weekend wasn’t the first time Twitter has censored me. Before permanent suspension, I was “jailed” three times for breaking their *COVID- disinformation rules*. (By “jailed,” I mean temporarily suspended with no ability to post, reply to, or like tweets, but able to chat in direct message.) Each of those those *offending* tweets is pasted below.

Image

I wrote about two of these instances here and here.

Of course, I’m not unique among so-called “Team Reality” Twitterati. Alex Berenson, Naomi Wolf, Justin Hart, Daniel Kotzin, Mark Changizi, El Gato Malo - these are just a few who’ve targeted for removal or punishment since March 2020, over posts about the virus, vaccine, or government’s pandemic-response. We’ve also seen vocal child-advocates like Jennifer Sey and Daniela Jampal lose their jobs over statements they’ve made on Twitter.

Elon Musk’s deal to purchase the micro-blogging platform - and his description of it as a “digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated” - bode well for a shift away from blatant suppression of free speech.

Still, I know better than to put faith in a billionaire.

My Biggest Question

At this point, my biggest question is why a 9-day-old, quote tweet highlighting another mom’s experience with her pediatrician was suddenly reported or noted as a violation of Twitter’s Covid-19 policy. Lawyer Mom’s post is clearly her perspective on what her pediatrician said, which contradicts data on the risks of Covid vaccination versus infection in teen boys. She QT’d Dr. Tracy Hoeg’s thoughtful thread on a relevant study, with a personal testimony.

My guess — and it’s truly a guess — is that something else I tweeted on Saturday morning upset someone with power or position such that either the person, an associate thereof, or a leveraged Twitter employee scrolled through my feed, in search of a post that could be used to lock my account. Since it was my fourth alleged violation, Twitter’s permanent suspension protocol was triggered, which is why the two emails were sent at the same time.

Here are some of the tweets I had posted earlier in the day:

Image

Yet none of these posts - all of which I stand by - was flagged.

If an army of trolls descended on my account and decided to all report the same tweet, with the goal of getting the tweet reviewed, would my QT of Lawyer Mom’s post really be their choice?

I don’t think so.

It’s more likely that something else I posted, either on Saturday or previously, made someone (or a group of someones) nervous. Rather than draw attention to that tweet by making it the grounds for locking the account, another tweet was chosen. To be clear, this is a working hypothesis - not an allegation or statement of fact.

What’s Next?

So, what’s next?

I’ve appealed the suspension, and Twitter has acknowledged it.

At best, they’ve violated their own policy (however misguided the policy is) and made a mistake. At worst, they are actively, unabashedly participating in suppression of free speech - possibly at the behest of government or private-industry actors.

My account may or may not be restored. I’ll continue to post content on this Substack, regardless. And if Substack kicks me off, I’ll try another medium.

Like water, free speech tends to find a way.

https://woodhouse.substack.com/p/twitte ... pended?s=r
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon May 02, 2022 8:27 pm

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby semper occultus » Tue May 03, 2022 11:04 am

I see that Caleb Maupin, Consortium News & Mint Press News have all lost access to Paypal for being too pro-Russian.

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2022/05/p ... arratives/
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Harvey » Tue May 03, 2022 3:38 pm

semper occultus » Tue May 03, 2022 4:04 pm wrote:I see that Caleb Maupin, Consortium News & Mint Press News have all lost access to Paypal for being too pro-Russian.

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2022/05/p ... arratives/


Swallow the money...
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests