Philanthropists linked to Facebook, Twitter and Netflix have donated more than $7.5 million to a host of non-profits controlled by Khan-Cullors, who has helped them lobby for “net neutrality.”
From the article:
“Is Black Lives Matter for rent?” said Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. “Charities are not supposed to be vehicles for corporate lobbying, particularly on matters outside the charity’s mission.”
Click here to read the whole story in the New York Post.
Also indisputable is that Congress will be powerless to alter their behavior, with at least another two years of guaranteed gridlock preventing the removal of Big Tech’s exemption under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says the online companies are like telecoms AT&T and Verizon (meaning they are protected from litigation) rather than news producers like the New York Times and Fox News (not protected from litigation).
Sure, you can expect more hearings like the one before the Senate Commerce Committee the week before Election Day, in which CEOs Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google) and Jack Dorsey (Twitter) were berated about their corporate underlings’ bias and censorship.
But it was just a repeat of previous Congressional theatrics: a lot of noise, and no action.… Read More ➡
Following the death of George Floyd at the hands of an out-of-control Minneapolis police officer, and demonstrations mixed with riots across the country, many American corporations weighed in with official statements or financial support for causes – or both.
Unfortunately the involvement of some put them more on the side of divisiveness than unity, at a time when the country needs the latter the most.
Ultimately many of the companies and/or their top-ranking officers got behind (again) the dubious narrative that there is “systemic racism” in law enforcement, and that minorities are disproportionately treated as suspects – or singled out for violent police tactics – more than whites. As Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald and former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy explained earlier this week, citing very convincing statistics, the idea there is structural bias in policing is a myth.
Twitter has now tried to censor the President of the United States, dropping any pretense of neutrality. On issues of race, Twitter’s neutrality was always a myth anyway.
As the National Legal and Policy Center criticized, Twitter and its CEO Jack Dorsey embraced Black Lives Matter in 2014 at a time when its activists were cheering on, or rationalizing away, the murder of police officers.
Dorsey even unveiled a #blacklivesmatter wall painting at company headquarters. He was photographed with BLM activist DeRay McKesson, both clenching fists.
Clenched fists are not symbols of neutrality, or even of the weak confronting the strong. Instead, clenched fists are meant to threaten and intimidate.
In 2015, McKesson defended looting as a legitimate form of political protest in a talk at Yale University. McKesson ran for mayor of burned-out Baltimore and got 2.6%, but he was much more popular in Silicon Valley … Read More ➡
Last week’s polar opposite decisions on the handling of political advertisements by Facebook and Twitter have predictably exposed the anti-free speech tendencies of the Left.
The former announced it would allow candidate and issue ads and exempt them from the platform’s fact-checking operation that it employs for news reports.
The latter said it would ban political advertisements altogether.
Advertisers crave access to Facebook’s users far more than Twitter’s, mostly because it is easy to specify target audiences (for example, those who “Like” Donald Trump). But both social media operations are desirable for politicians and activists to get their messages out, even for Republicans who complain about Facebook’s admitted anti-conservative bias, because they are an effective tool to reach desired voters.
The rationale given by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for his decision shows a mindset that helps explain why his business was not profitable until recently.
One of the more noxious aspects of anti-Trump radicalism is the growing practice of obtaining private information on public figures for the purpose of mobilizing large-scale harassment campaigns against them. The practice is known as “doxxing.” It’s highly illegal. Yet it thrives largely because of tacit encouragement from social media sites. That raises a couple of questions: Are social media companies willfully enabling such behavior? And if not, are they at least taking steps to discourage it? So far, their action has been underwhelming.
Doxxers tend to be a self-righteous lot, possessed of moral indignation against supposed perpetrators of injustice. They also are prone to viewing themselves as above the law. Case in point: Jackson Cosko, age 27, a former Senate staffer arrested last October for posting home addresses, phone numbers and other personal information about five senators, including Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, whom he claimed … Read More ➡
Perhaps the leaders of Silicon Valley’s major Internet-based tech companies be more credible if they heeded their conservative-leaning employees, who feel marginalized and muted, because of the leftist cultures they have cultivated in their workplaces.
And maybe these executives would be taken more seriously if they would simply stop lying – especially in places such as before Congressional committees – by saying they don’t “intentionally” impose policies that censor those on the right.
Because that is exactly what they do.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, after a recent campaign in which he made himself available to conservatives (including Sean Hannity) to discuss their grievances about restriction of their voices, admitted in an interview last week that his conservative employees don’t feel comfortable expressing themselves at the office.
“We have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe … Read More ➡
Twitter and CEO Jack Dorsey have come under criticism on this Web site and others over past efforts to censorconservatives, but in the high-profile case this week with provocateur Alex Jones and his organization Infowars, Twitter didn’t go along with the mob (Apple, Facebook, Google/YouTube, Pinterest and Spotify) and boot him from their social media platform.
It doesn’t appear that Twitter has necessarily seen the light, as it still shadow bans conservatives (a charge that Dorsey has denied), but the CEO’s explanation for not taking out Infowars articulated principles that the other tech companies should heed.
Saying that Infowars “hasn’t violated our rules” and that Twitter “wouldn’t succumb and simply react to outside pressure” (like the group thinkers at Facebook, YouTube, etc. obviously did), Dorsey then put the onus for holding Jones and company accountable on others.
“Accounts like Jones’ can often sensationalize … Read More ➡
A pro-life organization has caught Twitter in the act (again) of censoring yet another conservative policy advocate, while allowing the controversial Planned Parenthood to conduct its messaging on the social media platform unfettered.
The accusation – with proof – came from Lila Rose, president of Live Action, who said on several occasions she has tried to expand messaging to Twitter users via paid advertisements and has been denied. At the same time, she says, Planned Parenthood has boosted its Tweets freely.
“I think it’s clear that Twitter is discriminating against the pro-life voice,” Rose told the Washington Times. “Planned Parenthood is allowed to promote their pro-abortion and misleading messages, while Live Action is barred from promoting any content exposing abortion and Planned Parenthood.”
Live Action is an extremely effective organization that has exposed the excesses and extremity of Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion advocacy and its ghoulish … Read More ➡