Twitter’s bias and inconsistencies in applying its rules and standards are getting ridiculous.
While Chinese government mouthpiece Zhao Lijian – who accused the U.S. military of being the source of the Wuhan virus outbreak – remains on the platform spouting propaganda, American users are being censored or shut down over alleged coronavirus “misinformation,” and for running afoul of the Left’s transgender agenda.
Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, who have become online celebrities with their entertaining pro-Trump duologues as “Diamond and Silk,” found their account blocked Wednesday after Twitter said they violated their rules, because they supposedly misled the public about public policy and how people should respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The only way we can become immune to the environment; we must be out in the environment,” the rule-breaking tweet said. “Quarantining people inside of their houses for extended periods will make people sick!”
With the first implementation of a new policy that purports to promote transparency in labeling videos that have been edited in ways that could be deceptive or misleading, Twitter couldn’t have succeeded better in making transparent its own liberal bias.
Last weekend the social media platform marked a video posted by White House social media director Dan Scavino, and retweeted by President Trump, as “manipulated media.” The label had never before been used, although Twitter warned that it was coming.
The video showed a clip of a speech by Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden in his own stumbling words, which were cropped to make it appear he was endorsing Trump. The Democratic National Committee called attention to Twitter that the video was “manipulated,” according to The Daily Beast, and Twitter immediately slapped the label on it.
“This is an example of our ongoing disinformation work, … Read More ➡
The knock against Facebook that is getting the most attention right now is that CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said the platform will not act as arbiters of truth and falsehood for political candidates’ posts and ads.
Current and former political candidates like Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have argued that it is irresponsible for the company to not be watchdogs for truth. For his part, Zuckerberg has said essentially that Facebook users are fully capable (through comments) of policing truth vs. fiction and that free speech, not censorship, should be paramount.
As the left’s attacks on Facebook get more hysterical – thanks to President Donald Trump’s smashing success in using the platform – critics are emerging seemingly everywhere, calling for increased accountability through government regulation, because the social media company has “too much power.”
Besides the politicians, a top corporate executive has also spoken out against … Read More ➡
His behavior speaks of someone who was handed a massive inheritance and did nothing to earn it, rather than the from-the-bootstraps tech entrepreneur that he actually is.
His billions (as the world’s wealthiest man, according to Forbes) and his ascent to notoriety appear to have driven him to obsess over his image, but rather than actually conduct himself like a responsible grown-up, he would rather throw money around in futile attempts to come off as more responsible and mature than he is.
For example, consider his recent announcement that he will dedicate $10 billion of his personal wealth to “fight climate change.” It’s hard to imagine a business that belches more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the deliver-everywhere, mega-cloud-computing Amazon. Between package transport vehicles (oil) and massive … Read More ➡
As has been the case on issues such as global warming, oil and gas pipelines, and gun manufacturing, the radicals’ have increasingly targeted big banks, which they attempt to shame and coerce into de-funding businesses associated with projects with which they disapprove. Those financial institutions, averse to unpleasant public relations, often cave to their demands.
One recent example of their capitulation is the funding of private companies that contract with the federal government to manage prisons and detention centers for immigrants who have entered the United States illegally. Two of these … Read More ➡
For decades labor unions have utilized the tactics of corporate campaigns, which single out and target individual companies with public pressure via shaming and critical attacks, in order to get them to surrender and accept unionization of their workers.
Other activists behind various progressive causes have adopted the strategy in order to advance their agendas. Not the least of these are the shrill climate change warriors, who battle against the “evils” of the fossil fuels that energize almost every aspect of our everyday modern lives.
So far environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace and 350.org have gone after the obvious targets: coal and oil companies; public utilities like Duke Energy and American Electric Power; the automobile industry; and tech companies like Apple and Amazon who churn massive amounts of electricity for cloud computing services and the like.
Democrat Congressional candidate Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, who is running for her late husband Elijah’s seat representing part of Baltimore, appeared on “The View” Monday and was not questioned about the scandal surrounding her nonprofit organization that has dogged her for the last 9 months.
It was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, so the hosts understandably wanted to discuss her late husband’s civil rights accomplishments. Elijah Cummings died on October 17th.
But the restraint showed by failing to address a touchy political and ethical subject for Rockeymoore Cummings – who is the subject of an IRS complaint filed by National Legal and Policy Center over the handling of her nonprofit charity – did not prevent the discussion from drifting into criticisms and aspersions about President Donald Trump.
“When you look to the future, do you feel optimistic about the next … Read More ➡
If there was any doubt about why the political Left has suddenly turned against Facebook, it has become clear: It is because they think the social media behemoth is helping President Donald Trump.
Revelations last week by top executive Andrew Bosworth, a vice president who was in charge of advertising during the 2016 election season, won’t disabuse liberals of that. Bosworth, however, did not give Facebook credit for the Trump campaign’s success in 2016 – rather, he attributed it to where it belonged.
“He ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period,” Bosworth wrote in a private Facebook post that he later made public after the New York Times published a story about it.
“[Digital Director Brad] Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work,” added Bosworth, a self-proclaimed liberal who is reportedly close to CEO … Read More ➡
In announcing yesterday that Saudi shooter Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani – an aviation trainee who killed three U.S. service members and wounded eight at the Pensacola (Fla.) Naval Air Station in a mass shooting last month characterized as “jihad” – Attorney General William Barr said Apple Inc. has provided no “substantive” help in unlocking the late assailant’s two iPhones.
Apple disputes that claim.
The disagreement boils down to whether Apple is providing any useful information from Alshamrani’s data for the Justice Department investigation, or not.
“Within one day of the shooting, the FBI sought and received court authorization based on probable cause to search both phones in an effort to run down all leads and figure out with whom the shooter was communicating,” Barr explained, adding that the shooter damage both phones, one of them by shooting a round into it.
So has Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg suddenly become a free speech devotee?
If you observe how the political Left is reacting and obsessing over his decision last month to not police political advertisements, you’d think he might have.
His announcement was juxtaposed against the polar opposite move of social media rival Twitter, and its CEO Jack Dorsey, who in early November said his platform would completely ban political ads. The contrast between the two near-simultaneous declarations likely heightened the blowback against Facebook.
The policy means that Facebook won’t subject political ads placed by candidates or advocacy groups to the site’s fact-checking review, as it does with news articles. Nor will ads accused of being false be removed.
Specifically, Zuckerberg said, “In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for public companies to censor policies or the news.” He downplayed the speculation that he was allowing the ads … Read More ➡