“Old school digital censorship”? It has been one long continuous trend of ever increasing clamp-downs on free speech. Trump, Musk and any other false heroes have been engaged in exactly the same speech-curtailing activities as every other member of the techno-fascist oligarchy. Covid was the apotheosis of the global censorship and propaganda efforts — demonstrating very clearly that it is not partisan or political: it is about raw power and control.
There are no good guys in this battle: just the population/serfs vs our would-be feudal overlords.
"Trump, Musk and any other false heroes have been engaged in exactly the same speech-curtailing activities as every other member of the techno-fascist oligarchy. "
Give us some examples, Debbie. I think you are just looking for clicks.
Musk's purchase of X singlehandedly broke the illusion of consensus manufactured by the tech platforms to suppress dissent and revealed the censorship apparatus at work during COVID. I'm not sure why he's getting thrown in the hopper with Trump. And X is far from perfect, but it's still much better than Meta and Google.
Thanks Matt. Important perspective. You say, "...the awesome information-squashing gadgets available..." I am praying that, in this age of broad independent platform availability, truth finds its way to the pubic. X has helped to this point, but I don't think we can put our trust in Musk. You are certainly doing your part; I'm off to purchase Siegel's "The Information State." I also highly recommend Iain Davis' new book, "The Technocratic Dark State." NOT available on Amazon, a good sign that it hits the mark.
“X has helped truth find its way to the public”? Good grief. X has become a major conduit for false information (especially right-wing propaganda) under Musk. X is now the epicenter for election misinformation and conspiracy theories. Researchers have found false or misleading election claims made by Musk have accumulated billions of views. Research has also shown a significant increase in hate speech and inauthentic (bot-like) activity on the platform since Musk took over. Additionally, Musk has made structural changes to X’s algorithm in order to favor his own content, as the platform’s most followed user, as well as that of other far-right accounts.
BS response. Just leftwing publications saying waaa waaa waaa.
Plos - You are just butt hurt that X doesn't censor shit you think is "hate".
Montclair State - again, just a bitch session that something some lefties call "hate" is allowed in public and you are butt hurt by it.
Berkley - Duh, Berkley - snitching as usual that thibnkgs it does not like, othe3r people say. Here's one: “To solve society’s most pressing challenges, such as climate change, poverty and access to health care, we need cooperation, and so it’s important to build information environments that foster pro-social interaction and cooperation,” Hickey said. “It’s important to keep research like this alive and to continue monitoring social media platforms for antisocial behavior.”
Arxiv - more bitfching by lefties who think anything they do not like is hate speech and should be suppressed.
You are simply an unhappy Prog idiot who is butt hurt by Elon Musk's existence.
You are just butt hurt that researchers are calling out Musk’s support of bigoted speech and his hypocritical censoring of folks who criticize him while calling himself a “free speech absolutist.”
Hate speech is offensive discourse targeting folks based solely on their inherent characteristics (race, religion, gender, etc). Apparently you think such speech is just fine on a widely used public platform.
As for censorship, X censors accounts that Elon Musk does not like. Here are some examples:
The "@ElonJet" account that tracked Musk's private jet was permanently banned with the platform changing its policy to restrict public-interest tracking of planes.
Musk suspended journalists from outlets like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post who reported on the ban of the "@ElonJet" account.
You brandish that word like YOUR definition is authoritative. Just a little mite of modesty might be in order.
Would you consider discussions of "White Privilege" to be "offensive?"
Is "Whiteness" an inherent characteristic?
If you feel that it is learned, can you deny that gay culture is to some extent learned? Where do we draw the line between inherent gayness which you would protect from "offensive" analysis and learned gayness which we would presume you that would allow to be analyzed per your own assertion?
There is no such thing as hate speech. What you describe is free speech. If you don't like it, counter it with more speech. Your argument and those of the links you share, is that everything you don't like should be censored, and everything you do shouldn't be. That is not how it works in a country where freedom of speech is the most important freedom we have.
Um, no, most of the posts on X containing false information are from right wing sources. Whether it is fake accounts or real accounts spewing misinformation, researchers have found such accounts portray themselves as American patriots or are run by real conservatives that pushing topics like anti-vaccine sentiments, immigration concerns and pro-Kremlin narratives on the Russia-Ukraine war.
So right-wing sources hate President Trump and love Barack Obama and J. Autopen Biden????? Those are the main fake posts on X.
Also "pro-Kremlin narratives" are left wing. Putin obviously hates President Trump for his support for Ukraine, unlike Biden who let Russia invade Ukraine!
Um, no, most of the false information on X concerns political topics like election integrity, immigration and alleged actions of democrats i.e. allowing sharia law, confiscating guns, defunding the police, etc. as well as posts about vaccine safety and climate change not posts spewing “hate of President Trump and love for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”
As for your claim that “pro-Kremlin narratives are left wing” — that is false. Putin does not “hate President Trump.” Putin wanted Trump to win the presidential elections in 2016, 2020 and 2024 which is why Putin had Russia’s Internet Research Agency and the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence) interfere in those elections. Putin even said he wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486
How Joe Biden helped build a financial system that’s great for Delaware banks and terrible for the rest of us.
Tim MurphyNovember/December 2019 Issue
Justin Metz
"Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.
In early 1973, as Joe Biden was settling into his new job in Washington, DC, Ralph Nader published a deconstruction of what made the freshman Democratic senator’s state of Delaware, the most anodyne of states, so exceptional. The answer, The Company State explained, had to do with the unique relationship between government and commerce: Delaware was less a democracy than a fiefdom, contorting its laws to meet the demands of its corporate lords.
"Preeminent among them was the chemical giant DuPont. Nader took readers to Rodney Square, in the heart of Wilmington. There was the ritzy Hotel du Pont, housed in a building owned by DuPont, next to a theater built by DuPont, connected to a bank controlled by the du Pont family, surrounded by law offices and brokerages—all affiliated in some way with what was known simply as “The Company.” The du Ponts owned the state’s two largest newspapers and employed a tenth of the state legislature. The governor was a former executive. The state’s member of Congress for most of the 1970s was Pierre Samuel du Pont IV.
“General Motors could buy Delaware,” Nader quipped, “if DuPont were willing to sell it.”
"Over the next two decades, as Biden rose through the ranks of the Democratic Party, the state’s center of gravity began to shift from the world of chemicals to the big business of other people’s business—banking, accounting, law, and telemarketing. But if the industry had changed, the ethos remained: Delaware was the Company State. It owed its prosperity to its willingness to give corporations what they wanted.
"You can also listen to Tim Murphy’s story read aloud:..."
"Though he’s now a millionaire thanks to book sales and speaking fees, Biden has long positioned himself as the champion of the middle class, a scrappy kid from Scranton who’s fought the good fight for decades. His adopted home state is part of that identity too—an unglamorous enclave of scrapple and toll roads, the Acela Corridor’s own Flyover Country. But as he pursues his third and likely final quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, his record haunts him, because the interests of Delaware are often at extreme odds with everyone else’s."
"Biden did not create this system, but he used his influence to strengthen and protect it. He cast key votes that deregulated the banking industry, made it harder for individuals to escape their credit card debts and student loans, and protected his state’s status as a corporate bankruptcy hub.
"Biden’s career in the Senate placed him on the wrong side of some of the biggest financial fights of his generation and brought him into conflict with some of the same rivals he faces today. If you want to understand how Biden became Biden, you have to understand how Delaware became Delaware."
"Delaware is a tiny state, and because it is tiny, it has had to get creative to survive. Small countries sell shipping rights, citizenship, and secrecy. Delaware offers an American variation of the same—a legal and administrative sanctuary that allows businesses to do things there that they could not do elsewhere.
"The foundation for the state’s economy began with its 1776 constitution, which created a special venue for the handling of business disputes, called the chancery court. But Delaware’s role as America’s corporate epicenter traces back to 1899, when—with the backing of the du Ponts—legislators passed the General Corporation Law, allowing anyone in the United States who wanted to form a company in Delaware to do so. The number of corporations based in the state grew quickly, and when New Jersey—the OG of lax incorporation laws—decided to crack down on trusts, Delaware welcomed the exiles."
"The incorporation law made it easy to set up shop in Delaware, and the chancery court made it convenient to stay. Companies knew they’d get a reliable pro-business forum for their disputes. Today, there are nearly twice as many Delaware-incorporated companies as there are Delaware voters, and incorporation fees constitute the second-largest share of the state’s annual revenue."
"But Delaware’s windfall comes at the expense of other states."
Corporations can place their profits in Delaware-based holding companies to avoid paying taxes in the places where they actually operate. Delaware LLCs can also be incorporated anonymously via third-party agents, stifling transparency. “Setting up a company in Delaware,” the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says, “requires less information than signing up for a library card.”
Glad you're covering this Matt. Order your copies of The Information State now, folks, before Renee DiResta is successful — yes, it's her, and she's actually doing this — in convincing publisher Henry Holt to "correct the manuscript."
Mr. Siegel's been on the RCI pod, Doug Lain's pod, and others, and he continues to be one of the most fascinating writers and thinkers on this still-important subject. It's clear that what Mr. Taibbi has been documenting here, and what Mr. Siegel has written about in his book never actually stopped; it's the information state, but newly concealed. Zuckerberg and those guys are going to favor, or disfavor, whoever they think is in their best interest from day to day.
Lots of info on X — you can hook into the stream via author’s Twitter account [ @Jacob_Siegler ] assuming you have an account there. Coverage from other outlets including Substack coming, I would presume…
Who could have seen this coming?? The entire "the left is worse than the right when it comes to censorship and power" really need to get back to calling balls and strikes. The full on shift to Trump in 2024 should have them all apologizing for helping to get him elected. The credibility of everyone involved in that clown show continues to disappear the further into Trump 2.0 we go.
Big Tech is reverting to its old ways in less than two years? When did it actually change?
"If both parties use the tools, the first things to vanish will be criticism of the tools. We’re headed that way." We're here, homie, and we've been here for a while. These tools are only criticized by the party that is currently out of power. Once that party is in power, the criticism stops.
All power leans towards censorship. Nothing new here. Trump may be marginally better as he fights the censorship in the public sphere rather than just gaslighting freedom and stealing it with government, but all government hates being criticized no matter the source or the truth.
If you use social media then you’re subjected to the whims of those private companies owned by oligarchs. Haven’t used any in over a decade and couldn’t care less if they all went by the way of the dodo. I’m not missing any news of the day and not getting it within the second it happens is more than fine with me.
Are you suggesting government or government subsidized non profit personnel are pressuring social media companies to reject certain ads? If not, this is nothing like what you and others revealed with the twitter files.
While "FCC chair Brendan Carr’s ham-handed threats to networks that they will “lose their licenses” if they don’t “operate in the public interest”" is ham handed, as you say, it is also factual based on what was required when the networks were issued a license to access limited bandwidth of public airwaves.
“Old school digital censorship”? It has been one long continuous trend of ever increasing clamp-downs on free speech. Trump, Musk and any other false heroes have been engaged in exactly the same speech-curtailing activities as every other member of the techno-fascist oligarchy. Covid was the apotheosis of the global censorship and propaganda efforts — demonstrating very clearly that it is not partisan or political: it is about raw power and control.
There are no good guys in this battle: just the population/serfs vs our would-be feudal overlords.
"Trump, Musk and any other false heroes have been engaged in exactly the same speech-curtailing activities as every other member of the techno-fascist oligarchy. "
Give us some examples, Debbie. I think you are just looking for clicks.
Musk's purchase of X singlehandedly broke the illusion of consensus manufactured by the tech platforms to suppress dissent and revealed the censorship apparatus at work during COVID. I'm not sure why he's getting thrown in the hopper with Trump. And X is far from perfect, but it's still much better than Meta and Google.
Thanks Matt. Important perspective. You say, "...the awesome information-squashing gadgets available..." I am praying that, in this age of broad independent platform availability, truth finds its way to the pubic. X has helped to this point, but I don't think we can put our trust in Musk. You are certainly doing your part; I'm off to purchase Siegel's "The Information State." I also highly recommend Iain Davis' new book, "The Technocratic Dark State." NOT available on Amazon, a good sign that it hits the mark.
“X has helped truth find its way to the public”? Good grief. X has become a major conduit for false information (especially right-wing propaganda) under Musk. X is now the epicenter for election misinformation and conspiracy theories. Researchers have found false or misleading election claims made by Musk have accumulated billions of views. Research has also shown a significant increase in hate speech and inauthentic (bot-like) activity on the platform since Musk took over. Additionally, Musk has made structural changes to X’s algorithm in order to favor his own content, as the platform’s most followed user, as well as that of other far-right accounts.
"Research has also shown a significant increase in hate speech and inauthentic (bot-like) activity on the platform since Musk took over. "
Another unsupported and unsupportable premise from a left wing loser. Go back to Bluesky
Nope. It is supported. Here’s the research:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313293
https://www.montclair.edu/college-of-communication-and-media/2022/10/29/study-finds-hate-speech-increases-on-twitter-after-elon-musk-acquisition/
https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/study-finds-persistent-spike-hate-speech-x#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20presence,a%20press%20release%20by%20PLOS.
https://arxiv.org/html/2304.04129v3#:~:text=On%20October%2027th%2C%202022%2C%20Elon%20Musk%2C%20CEO%20of%20SpaceX,'Brien%20and%20Ortutay%202022)%20.
BS response. Just leftwing publications saying waaa waaa waaa.
Plos - You are just butt hurt that X doesn't censor shit you think is "hate".
Montclair State - again, just a bitch session that something some lefties call "hate" is allowed in public and you are butt hurt by it.
Berkley - Duh, Berkley - snitching as usual that thibnkgs it does not like, othe3r people say. Here's one: “To solve society’s most pressing challenges, such as climate change, poverty and access to health care, we need cooperation, and so it’s important to build information environments that foster pro-social interaction and cooperation,” Hickey said. “It’s important to keep research like this alive and to continue monitoring social media platforms for antisocial behavior.”
Arxiv - more bitfching by lefties who think anything they do not like is hate speech and should be suppressed.
You are simply an unhappy Prog idiot who is butt hurt by Elon Musk's existence.
Back to Bluesky with you!
As I wrote, "unsupported and unsupportable premise".
You are just butt hurt that researchers are calling out Musk’s support of bigoted speech and his hypocritical censoring of folks who criticize him while calling himself a “free speech absolutist.”
Hate speech is offensive discourse targeting folks based solely on their inherent characteristics (race, religion, gender, etc). Apparently you think such speech is just fine on a widely used public platform.
As for censorship, X censors accounts that Elon Musk does not like. Here are some examples:
The "@ElonJet" account that tracked Musk's private jet was permanently banned with the platform changing its policy to restrict public-interest tracking of planes.
Musk suspended journalists from outlets like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post who reported on the ban of the "@ElonJet" account.
https://gizmodo.com/10-times-elon-musk-censored-twitter-users-1850570720
"Offensive" is in the eye of the beholder.
You brandish that word like YOUR definition is authoritative. Just a little mite of modesty might be in order.
Would you consider discussions of "White Privilege" to be "offensive?"
Is "Whiteness" an inherent characteristic?
If you feel that it is learned, can you deny that gay culture is to some extent learned? Where do we draw the line between inherent gayness which you would protect from "offensive" analysis and learned gayness which we would presume you that would allow to be analyzed per your own assertion?
There is no such thing as hate speech. What you describe is free speech. If you don't like it, counter it with more speech. Your argument and those of the links you share, is that everything you don't like should be censored, and everything you do shouldn't be. That is not how it works in a country where freedom of speech is the most important freedom we have.
Finally a reliable source -- gizmodo.com 😂
Seriously? You think someone should publish tracking of his plane and him taking steps to protect his whereabouts is censorship. Good grief.
? You talkin' to me?
No I was talking to Helo Pilot, sorry
And I can’t seem to fix it. I’m not a well-versed commenter. I should probably just keep my opinions to myself
"(especially right-wing propaganda) " should be "(especially left-wing propaganda) ".
Most of the fake posts are from left wing sources, a lot probably from Russia.
Um, no, most of the posts on X containing false information are from right wing sources. Whether it is fake accounts or real accounts spewing misinformation, researchers have found such accounts portray themselves as American patriots or are run by real conservatives that pushing topics like anti-vaccine sentiments, immigration concerns and pro-Kremlin narratives on the Russia-Ukraine war.
https://edmo.eu/publications/how-elon-musks-powerful-disinformation-machine-works/
So right-wing sources hate President Trump and love Barack Obama and J. Autopen Biden????? Those are the main fake posts on X.
Also "pro-Kremlin narratives" are left wing. Putin obviously hates President Trump for his support for Ukraine, unlike Biden who let Russia invade Ukraine!
Um, no, most of the false information on X concerns political topics like election integrity, immigration and alleged actions of democrats i.e. allowing sharia law, confiscating guns, defunding the police, etc. as well as posts about vaccine safety and climate change not posts spewing “hate of President Trump and love for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”
As for your claim that “pro-Kremlin narratives are left wing” — that is false. Putin does not “hate President Trump.” Putin wanted Trump to win the presidential elections in 2016, 2020 and 2024 which is why Putin had Russia’s Internet Research Agency and the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence) interfere in those elections. Putin even said he wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/11/biden-bankruptcy-president/
"House of Cards
How Joe Biden helped build a financial system that’s great for Delaware banks and terrible for the rest of us.
Tim MurphyNovember/December 2019 Issue
Justin Metz
"Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.
In early 1973, as Joe Biden was settling into his new job in Washington, DC, Ralph Nader published a deconstruction of what made the freshman Democratic senator’s state of Delaware, the most anodyne of states, so exceptional. The answer, The Company State explained, had to do with the unique relationship between government and commerce: Delaware was less a democracy than a fiefdom, contorting its laws to meet the demands of its corporate lords.
"Preeminent among them was the chemical giant DuPont. Nader took readers to Rodney Square, in the heart of Wilmington. There was the ritzy Hotel du Pont, housed in a building owned by DuPont, next to a theater built by DuPont, connected to a bank controlled by the du Pont family, surrounded by law offices and brokerages—all affiliated in some way with what was known simply as “The Company.” The du Ponts owned the state’s two largest newspapers and employed a tenth of the state legislature. The governor was a former executive. The state’s member of Congress for most of the 1970s was Pierre Samuel du Pont IV.
“General Motors could buy Delaware,” Nader quipped, “if DuPont were willing to sell it.”
"Over the next two decades, as Biden rose through the ranks of the Democratic Party, the state’s center of gravity began to shift from the world of chemicals to the big business of other people’s business—banking, accounting, law, and telemarketing. But if the industry had changed, the ethos remained: Delaware was the Company State. It owed its prosperity to its willingness to give corporations what they wanted.
"You can also listen to Tim Murphy’s story read aloud:..."
"Though he’s now a millionaire thanks to book sales and speaking fees, Biden has long positioned himself as the champion of the middle class, a scrappy kid from Scranton who’s fought the good fight for decades. His adopted home state is part of that identity too—an unglamorous enclave of scrapple and toll roads, the Acela Corridor’s own Flyover Country. But as he pursues his third and likely final quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, his record haunts him, because the interests of Delaware are often at extreme odds with everyone else’s."
"Biden did not create this system, but he used his influence to strengthen and protect it. He cast key votes that deregulated the banking industry, made it harder for individuals to escape their credit card debts and student loans, and protected his state’s status as a corporate bankruptcy hub.
"Biden’s career in the Senate placed him on the wrong side of some of the biggest financial fights of his generation and brought him into conflict with some of the same rivals he faces today. If you want to understand how Biden became Biden, you have to understand how Delaware became Delaware."
"Delaware is a tiny state, and because it is tiny, it has had to get creative to survive. Small countries sell shipping rights, citizenship, and secrecy. Delaware offers an American variation of the same—a legal and administrative sanctuary that allows businesses to do things there that they could not do elsewhere.
"The foundation for the state’s economy began with its 1776 constitution, which created a special venue for the handling of business disputes, called the chancery court. But Delaware’s role as America’s corporate epicenter traces back to 1899, when—with the backing of the du Ponts—legislators passed the General Corporation Law, allowing anyone in the United States who wanted to form a company in Delaware to do so. The number of corporations based in the state grew quickly, and when New Jersey—the OG of lax incorporation laws—decided to crack down on trusts, Delaware welcomed the exiles."
"The incorporation law made it easy to set up shop in Delaware, and the chancery court made it convenient to stay. Companies knew they’d get a reliable pro-business forum for their disputes. Today, there are nearly twice as many Delaware-incorporated companies as there are Delaware voters, and incorporation fees constitute the second-largest share of the state’s annual revenue."
"But Delaware’s windfall comes at the expense of other states."
Corporations can place their profits in Delaware-based holding companies to avoid paying taxes in the places where they actually operate. Delaware LLCs can also be incorporated anonymously via third-party agents, stifling transparency. “Setting up a company in Delaware,” the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says, “requires less information than signing up for a library card.”
Via
Tio Mitchito
TM
They see the winds are changing. Tech guys are like wall street, they are leading indicators.
Glad you're covering this Matt. Order your copies of The Information State now, folks, before Renee DiResta is successful — yes, it's her, and she's actually doing this — in convincing publisher Henry Holt to "correct the manuscript."
Mr. Siegel's been on the RCI pod, Doug Lain's pod, and others, and he continues to be one of the most fascinating writers and thinkers on this still-important subject. It's clear that what Mr. Taibbi has been documenting here, and what Mr. Siegel has written about in his book never actually stopped; it's the information state, but newly concealed. Zuckerberg and those guys are going to favor, or disfavor, whoever they think is in their best interest from day to day.
Opening line of book review that was ‘cancelled’ was:
“EVERY SO OFTEN a political book arrives that reshapes how we understand the ground beneath our feet…”
Here is link to full text, courtesy of Wayback Machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20260324181826/https://thebaffler.com/latest/digital-leviathan-greenwald
(More detailed comment below in this comments stream)
I read the archived review. It's good, and isn't without criticisms. It's beyond bewildering that the Baffler felt like it needed to be fully removed.
The Baffler review removal is ... baffling, to say the least. Tell us more.
Lots of info on X — you can hook into the stream via author’s Twitter account [ @Jacob_Siegler ] assuming you have an account there. Coverage from other outlets including Substack coming, I would presume…
Meanwhile:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260324181826/https://thebaffler.com/latest/digital-leviathan-greenwald
Who could have seen this coming?? The entire "the left is worse than the right when it comes to censorship and power" really need to get back to calling balls and strikes. The full on shift to Trump in 2024 should have them all apologizing for helping to get him elected. The credibility of everyone involved in that clown show continues to disappear the further into Trump 2.0 we go.
You are butthurt that your fellow citizens disagree.
That makes no sense. Cool comment, though.
I like Brendan Carr's ham-handed threats against the propaganda monopolists; they are entirely consistent with free speech.
Big Tech is reverting to its old ways in less than two years? When did it actually change?
"If both parties use the tools, the first things to vanish will be criticism of the tools. We’re headed that way." We're here, homie, and we've been here for a while. These tools are only criticized by the party that is currently out of power. Once that party is in power, the criticism stops.
What a naive article.
Rather than naive, I see it more as pointing out to those who think their side is infallible, that their side ALSO does it.
All power leans towards censorship. Nothing new here. Trump may be marginally better as he fights the censorship in the public sphere rather than just gaslighting freedom and stealing it with government, but all government hates being criticized no matter the source or the truth.
If you use social media then you’re subjected to the whims of those private companies owned by oligarchs. Haven’t used any in over a decade and couldn’t care less if they all went by the way of the dodo. I’m not missing any news of the day and not getting it within the second it happens is more than fine with me.
They are all full of it. They will use censorship when it is convenient for them. No moral compass. No real convictions other than to make more money.
Have you heard of Doomberg?
They are market analysts and they ran an experiment when the Iran war kicked off.
They had a new iPad with only X. They trained the algorithm to only provide content from a pro-Iranian perspective.
By Sunday, they could no longer see content from Iran, or only on a limited basis.
Surprise, surprise, surprise…it was like a switch was flipped and they were cut off from content except pro-American.
The next war they decided they are doing a factory resent and training the algorithm again.
Censorship is alive and well in the good ol’ USA.
Are you suggesting government or government subsidized non profit personnel are pressuring social media companies to reject certain ads? If not, this is nothing like what you and others revealed with the twitter files.
While "FCC chair Brendan Carr’s ham-handed threats to networks that they will “lose their licenses” if they don’t “operate in the public interest”" is ham handed, as you say, it is also factual based on what was required when the networks were issued a license to access limited bandwidth of public airwaves.
This article is light on evidence but very heavy on conspiracy.
I miss Walter!
Come on. Free speech is in a much better place under Trump than under Biden.
The phrase "re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind