Tag Archive for: Facebook

Facebook Works to Deliver Us From Truth

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

This morning, a friend published a short post on Facebook, drawing attention to how it seemed to him the company was not even bothering any more to refer to the so-called “independent fact-checkers” to justify their censorship. He had re-posted a clip where Fox reporter Tucker Carlson discussed the negative effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines, referring to peer-reviewed studies. The clip is available here.

No reference to the twenty-something undergrads at the censorship agencies, just this label:

How on earth can peer-reviewed results constitute “misinformation”? The peer review process isn’t perfect, far from it, but after all it is the accepted standard. The first conclusion therefore is that the word “misinformation” does not refer to misinformation any more, it simply refers to any information the censor wants suppressed. The word has become meaningless.

The action, then, is suppression of a certain kind of information, but what about the reason? The reason for suppressing uncomfortable information about Covid-19 vaccines is that seeing this information may “make some people feel unsafe”. What does this mean precisely?

There are at least two possibilities, and here I’m talking only about those who believe in the narrative. The first is that people may feel unsafe seeing evidence that contradicts what they’ve been told by the authorities, the mainstream media and the social media giants; the “safe and effective” mantra. Watching Tucker Carlson’s review of the evidence might make people feel unsafe, uncertain, sceptical towards the propaganda relentlessly pushed towards them; this is what happens when you discover you’ve been deceived by someone you trusted. You feel unsafe for you don’t know who to trust any more.

Secondly, people may feel unsafe because their worldview is being threatened, while they still cling to it with all their might. They still believe the lies; they have no doubts, but discovering how some other people do not share their view of the world makes them frightened. Perhaps they’ve taken part in ostracising others, ridiculing them, wishing them harm, fearing for themselves if the truth comes out. Perhaps they suspect, deep down, that they are being deceived, but fear the consequences of the full realisation.

They may even have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they actually believe young and healthy people, an age-group with a demonstrated Covid mortality rate on par with the flu, will drop like flies in case they get infected, like this unfortunate young woman, willing to risk her life to protect her ill-advised belief.

Notice the wording in Facebook’s label. It does not say the alleged “misinformation” will make people unsafe, it says it will make them feel unsafe. When your view of the world is threatened you may certainly feel unsafe, but that doesn’t mean you are any less safe than you were before.

If someone points out to you the bridge you cross every day, and have been assured is well built and robust, is rusting away and may collapse any day, you may feel unsafe in the way you will doubt some other things you’ve been led to believe by the same people who assured you of the safety of the bridge, but avoiding that bridge will surely make you safer in the future.

If you find out that a medication you’ve been led to believe is safe and effective actually isn’t, you may feel unsafe in the same way. But avoiding that medication will surely make you safer in the future.

Having to think may make you feel unsafe, but it will not make you unsafe. A true belief is the result of thinking; to arrive at the truth we must have all the relevant information we can come by, evaluate it and in the end come to an informed conclusion. It may not hold forever, new evidence may present itself, we may have to reconsider our conclusion.

This is the essence of science, the prerequisite of progress, and also the prequisite of making the best and safest decisions for ourselves.

Facebook’s aim is not to make their users safe. Their aim is to make them feel they are safe, to prevent them from discovering challenging information, prevent them from thinking. They are the apostles of a new god, and his followers do not ask him to deliver them from evil, they ask him to deliver them from truth.

This article was published by Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Legacy Media’s Most Influential Newsletters Are Funded By America’s Biggest Corporations

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Many of the most influential sources of news in Washington, D.C. are funded by America’s biggest corporations, which often have a direct interest in the news they’re sponsoring.

Politico’s Playbook, the original digital newsletter for Washington insiders, is read by tens of thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, political staffers, lobbyists, and consultants every morning. Monday’s edition was sponsored by Google, with integrated blurbs touting the company’s efforts to help small businesses and woman-founded startups. Other Playbook posts within the past month have been presented by Facebook, the American Beverage Association (a lobbying group), and Amazon.

Axios, a Politico rival founded by former Politico employees, has its own Playbook Rival, Axios AM. Last week’s editions were presented by Bank of America. The week before that, Google. Punchbowl News, a newer competitor in the D.C.-insider news landscape, has had its flagship newsletter sponsored by Facebook, Alibaba (a Chinese eCommerce giant), and Blackstone in the past week.

For instance, Monday’s Politico Morning Energy newsletter was sponsored by Chevron; Politico Morning Money was sponsored by Blackstone; Politico’s Pulse and Prescription Pulse healthcare newsletters are presented by PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) and PCMA (Pharmaceutical Care Management Association).

Axios readers are treated to Axios Generate presented by ExxonMobil, Axios Vitals presented by the American Hospital Association, and Axios Login presented by Ericsson, a 5g equipment provider. (RELATED: Corporate Media Goes Into Full Panic Mode After Travel Mask Mandate Ends)

Politico previously scrubbed any evidence of sponsorship of its national security newsletter by Lockheed Martin, America’s biggest weapons manufacturer. The branding deal was widely criticized after being highlighted on social media. More traditional media isn’t immune to similar conflicts of interest, though — last year, The Washington Post ran an op-ed criticizing the prospect of withdrawing from Afghanistan, without disclosing the fact that the author was on the board of Raytheon, a leading defense contractor.


This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Big Tech Promotes a Big Lie

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

As Big Tech gatekeepers like Google and Amazon face long-overdue scrutiny in Washington for anti-competitive practices that limit choice and reduce quality online, they have resorted to a national security defense: Breaking us up, they claim, will only help China.

It’s an ironic move. These tech giants have extensive, well-documented ties to Beijing, doing high-volume business in China’s marketplace, while capitulating to the whims of its government for fear of losing access and status.

Their arguments are an insult to the spirit of American ingenuity, which is driven by innovation unleashed through competition, not by condoning a chokepoint of five global corporations that have become ever more complacent as their market power grows.

Innovation comes from all corners, not from a handful of gatekeepers that keep new ideas and services from coming to market. These dominant tech companies are the largest barrier to entry for companies that may have technology concepts critical to solving some of our biggest challenges.

Some bipartisan ideas are moving through Congress that could help prevent dominant platforms such as Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Google from favoring their own products and services to the detriment of small businesses, innovators, and consumers.

The bipartisan effort saw five Republicans vote with Democrats to move legislation out of committee, reflecting the overall bipartisan momentum around reining in Big Tech inside the Beltway and across the country.

According to Gallup, 57% of Americans believe the government should increase regulation of Big Tech, and a Vox poll found that 65% of Americans think its economic power is a problem facing the U.S. economy.

To be clear, the legislative efforts are not about punishing the Big Five because they’re big. They’re about addressing harmful behavior that allows them to keep their thumb on the scales to further monopoly status.

Big Tech can argue that these initiatives could jeopardize U.S. leadership over China and compromise user data all it wants, but that’s nonsense. There are clear national security provisions being considered to prevent the transfer of data to businesses affiliated with the government of China or other governments of foreign adversaries.

Let us not forget that these Big Tech platforms are some of the worst violators of privacy and data security in human history. Facebook paid a $5 billion fine for using deceptive practices and sharing its users’ personal information without permission with third-party apps. Google was fined for violating children’s privacy laws, and has been accused of secretly tracking users.

Moreover, Big Tech relies heavily on exploiting China’s cheap labor and production. In particular, Apple benefits from cheap labor for its products, stores troves of Chinese consumer data on servers owned by state-owned firms, and censors apps in its app store to appease Chinese government demands.

Apple even brokered a $275 billion deal to help develop China’s economic and technological abilities, but has refused to assist U.S. law enforcement in criminal cases at home.

Similarly, Amazon relies on Chinese forced labor for the production of many of its products, censors reviews and ratings to appease the Chinese Communist Party, and has even teamed up with firms that provide surveillance technology to the Chinese government’s concentration camps.

Google bent over backward to produce a censored search engine to comply with the strict speech prohibitions required by the Chinese Communist Party, while espousing internet freedom.

Giant tech firms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple have had years to be overseas ambassadors for American principles. They’ve often done exactly the opposite, violating basic tenets of consumer privacy and security and helping a regime whose view on human rights runs directly counter to U.S. ideals and to directly assist their military with things like artificial intelligence development.

Policymakers must ignore the bogus fearmongering on national security being pushed by Big Tech in an effort to evade accountability. Next time they are told that antitrust begets China’s dominance, they would be wise to consider the messenger.


This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.