YouTube Removes Videos of Putin Critic in Latest Act of Corporate Censorship

We have been discussing the rising support for corporate censorship among leading Democratic politicians, academics, and writers. Social media and Internet companies now actively respond to calls from government officials to silence those with opposing views. The latest such example is Google-owned YouTube removing videos of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny before Russia’s parliamentary elections.  Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Apple Inc. also pulled a voting app from Navalny ahead of the election. Nevertheless, CEO Susan Wojcicki bizarrely claimed in a Bloomberg interview Bloomberg Television that free speech remains a “core value” for the company.

Wojcicki explained that “[w]hen we work with governments, there are many things that we have to take in consideration, whether it’s local laws or what’s happening on the ground.” There is an alternative. You could simply protect free speech as the defining value of your company, particularly when “what’s happening on the ground” is an authoritarian crackdown against reformers and democratic change.

Russia banned Navalny’s groups as “extremist” organizations before the election to rig the election and YouTube carried out the orders of the Kremlin in the anti-democratic crackdown.

This is not the first such example of these companies carrying out the censorship directives from political figures. We have previously discussed Twitter’s robust censorship program that repeatedly has been denounced for bias in taking sides on scientificsocial, and political controversies. Twitter admitted to censoring criticism of India’s government and the company later flagged a critic of the Chinese government.

This is also a concern in the United States where politicians have demanded greater corporate censorship. Members of Congress are now pushing for public and private censorship on the internet and in other forums. They are being joined by an unprecedented alliance of academics, writers and activists calling for everything from censorship to incarceration to blacklists. For example, an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

Companies like YouTube are now acting as effective state medias in managing a massive system of censorship and speech controls. The action taken in Russia makes a mockery of claims that such censorship is meant to protect democracy. The only core value revealed in YouTube’s action is profit at any cost.

113 thoughts on “YouTube Removes Videos of Putin Critic in Latest Act of Corporate Censorship”

  1. Trump Derangement Syndrome..?

    Thinkthrough, and fellow puppets of the Blog Stooge, like to say that liberal commentators suffer from ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’. The idea seems to be that normal people recognize Trump as a normal president. As though executives in their 70’s normally have yellow hair!

    Donald Trump was the most abnormal president in history. For 4 years, Trump’s personal grievances took priority over the business of governing. Trump’s grievances are still a constant issue. The man has lived a life of wealth and privilege yet he imagines himself the victim of vast conspiracies. Conspiracies that can never be verified. Instead they always turn out like the Arizona Election Review; nothing tangible, but that’s ‘part of the conspiracy’.

    Yet Thinkthrough, and every Trump supporter, fancy normal people see nothing odd about Trump. So they label as ‘derangement’ the perceptions of truly normal people.

    1. Calling Nathan Hale: I regret I only having one head instead two to wear a MEGA hat if for no other reason to set the Commie/Fascist/Genderless Loonies hair on fire.

    2. Don’t you get it? It doesn’t matter, it NEVER mattered what party flag Trump ran under. The fact that he wasn’t a polished, focus group tested, career Beltway Insider WAS the appeal. The fact that he gave the middle finger to the very concept of “Presidential” was and is the reason he built a loyal support base.

      The simple fact is if you have spent a lifetime giving speeches, getting elected, and raising funds for campaign after campaign while you spend years in the House, Senate, Governor’s office, etc, is all that is necessary to disqualify you from office. A career in elected office is not now, nor should it ever be a positive thing on the resume for someone who wants’ to lead the country.

      I don’t care what you call yourself, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Libertarian, doesn’t matter. If you have spent your professional life getting elected, you are unfit for the highest office.

    3. “. . . like the Arizona Election Review; nothing tangible . . .”

      That is inaccurate.

      Some people need to learn the difference between a “recount” and an “audit.” The AZ *recount* revealed “nothing tangible.” The *audit* revealed much that is tangible — that points to either incompetence or fraud, that could have a material affect on the results.

    4. “The man has lived a life of wealth and privilege yet he imagines himself the victim of vast conspiracies. “

      Do you prefer a failure as President? Doesn’t that sound a bit foolish?

      “yellow hair”

      Do you prefer yellow hair to a successful end to the Afghanistan war. Biden doesn’t have yellow hair. His Afghan retreat was a failure and killed people. Preferring the hair not to be yellow sounds a bit foolish.

    5. The man has lived a life of wealth and privilege yet he imagines himself the victim of vast conspiracies. Conspiracies that can never be verified.
      A united project between the FBI, DoJ, State Dept, CIA, And the 5I’s is sort of a classic example of a conspiracy.
      We know the Foreign intelligence agencies are involved because those aligned against the President were public about NOT declassifying intel, because of the problem it would cause for our allies. All of the involvement of all these agencies and Foreign powers are all a matter of public record. The head of Mi6 promptly resigned days after the election when he knew all would be exposed. Steffen Halper has never been interviewed and Josheph Mifsud has not been seen in public, since.

    1. Young, your article tells us that Milley’s calls to China were witnessed by several others. So it doesn’t sound the least bit sneaky. In fact, I read that even Trump’s Chief Of Staff, Mark Meadows knew about the calls. That was ‘normal’ for Trump’s White House. Everyone had to protect Trump from Trump. He was essentially a mad king.

      1. But when the Taliban acted up after the agreement, Trump immediately stopped the madness and no Americans were killed over about 18 months. In comes Biden who actually needs to be protected from his senility and bad judgement of 47 years in the Senate. Biden destroyed western unity, soft power, killed Americans, killed our friends, and left Afghanistan so that America could face more prospects of terrorism. It seems failure is your preferred outcome.

      2. Here’s Milley’s opening statement to Congress yesterday:
        https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Printed%2028%20Sep%20SASC%20CJCS%20Written%20Statement.pdf
        The relevant section starts at the bottom of p. 8, “I want to take a moment to address the recent media reporting surrounding the conduct of my duties during the final months of the Trump Administration. …”

        You can also watch the entire testimony and read or search the automated transcript here:
        https://www.c-span.org/video/?514537-1/joint-chiefs-chair-general-milley-testify-afghanistan-withdrawal

            1. You can blame Bush for the war, that is fine.

              We must look at the way Milley and Biden handled their part of the war. It was a tragedy that did great harm to America, where both the President and the General put politics ahead of America. This wasn’t an act of being wrong. It was an act of “treason” in quotes only because the actions don’t meet the legal requirements.

              1. The Anonymous who posted the 1:09 PM comment is the one who chose to post a 2013 photo, taking it away from “the way Milley and Biden handled their part of the war.” Address him or her, not me.

                1. The 2013 coffins were courtesy of Obama. Maybe you will post the 2021 coffins from Biden and Milley. I note Bush’s name was also in the postings, so I am sure you could post a picture of coffins there as well. All have some complicity in the needless deaths of American soldiers, but as noted above only Biden and Milley’s complicity come close to what was labelled above as treason.

      3. Read carefully. Ignore the media lies. You learn that Meadows and Pampeo were notifired of the call…after.
        The larger context. There was NO EVIDENCE, that the Chinese had any angst.
        The Larger context. The Chairman of the Joints Cheif of Staff are not authorized to conduct foriegn affairs. That is the Constitutional perview of the Executive Branch, and implemented through the Department of State. Not the military head of the armed forces, Controlled by the Civilian Secretary of Defense, answering to the President of the United States.
        Milley is wildly ignoring the Chain of Command.

        1. Read carefully yourself.

          “With respect to the Chinese calls, I routinely communicated with my counterpart, General Li, with the knowledge and coordination of civilian oversight. I am specifically directed to communicate with the Chinese by Department of Defense Guidance, Policy Dialogue System. These military to military communications at the highest levels are critical to the security of the United States in order to deconflict military actions, manage crisis, and prevent war between great powers armed with nuclear weapons. … The calls on 30 October and 8 January were coordinated before and after with Secretary Esper and Acting Secretary Miller’s staffs and the interagency.”

          1. Again. No evidence China had concerns. The lie attempting to justify the call.

            There was no reason to contact China.

            If there is general to general contact, it should cease immediately. The Joints Cheifs OF staff has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
            The Military is under CIVILIAN CONTROL.

            1. LOL that you believe you even have access to all of the relevant evidence, some of which is classified, and which was provided to Congress.

              It’s not your decision whether there was reason to call. As he noted, “At Secretary of Defense Esper’s direction, I made a call to General Li on 30 October.” That IS civilian control.

              Did you even listen to all of the testimony?

              1. Anon–“At Secretary of Defense Esper’s direction, I made a call to General Li on 30 October.” That IS civilian control.”
                ***
                Civilian control except that its intent was to undermine the President, the Commander in Chief, and sidestep him. That brings it very near to mutiny.

                1. That is your opinion.

                  Perhaps Pompeo and Meadows didn’t agree with you, since they were aware of the calls, and Milley and Esper weren’t fired. Did they fail to notify Trump?

                  1. There are two different issues here.

                    The first is that we are dealing with speculation on top of speculation.
                    At the recent congressional hearings Miley should have been compelled to CLEARLY specifiy EXACTLY what he did and on what authority.
                    In a closed session if necescary.
                    And if he actually did as Woodward described he should have been court marshalled.
                    In his testimony Miley did not recall telling Woodward anything like what was printed in “Peril” and specificed that any calls to China were routine and with the knowledge of his superiors.

                    We can all speculate – is woodward lying, is Miley lying about his conversation with Woodward, is Miley lying about what he actually did ?
                    All we have is conflicting stories.

                    The second is that as Peril Reports the event myriads of those in the media and on the left have no problem with the call as reported.

                    That is a massive problem with those on the left.

                    Would it be OK with you if Miley called up his counterpart in China or Russia on his own and told them that if Biden moved on China or Russia he would let them know first ?

                    There is a better argument for Biden – he is clearly demented and in decline.

                    It is STILL wrong, unconstitutional, and just short of treasonous.

                    Whether the president is Trump or Biden, whether they are nuts or rational – they are president.

                    The remedies for a “rogue” or incapacitated president is NOT the unilateral action of the JCS Chair – regardless.

                    There are THREE remedies.

                    First, as was established in the Nuremberg trials, those in government and the military may not obey an immoral order.
                    If they do they are culpable.

                    No world leader can act on their own to start a minor conflict much less armegedon.
                    When ordered to act immorally, illegally, or unconstitutionally, those so directed must individually refuse that order.

                    We saw an example of that with the Watergate “Friday night massacre” in which the top of DOJ all resigned rather than fire the special prosecutor.

                    That is still an INDIVIDUAL action – Miley can not order others not to obey an order from a proper authority in their chain of command.

                    Second there is the 25th amendment. Miley or anyone else in the executive or military is free to seek to have the cabinet declare the president unfit. That results in an immediate though temporary suspension of the presidents authority, until Congress acts to do so permamently.

                    The Third is impeachment conviction and removal.

                    We are constantly seeing those on the left try to manufacture creative new ways to thwart the president – so long as that president is republican.

                    THERE ARE NONE.

                    WE had this issue with Sally Yates and Trump’s immigration EO.
                    If as she claimed it was unconstitutional she was required to resign if directed to enforce it.
                    She failed to do so and was properly fired.
                    Subsequently the courts found the obvious – that the EO was constitutional.

                    The nonsense that Obama, Biden, Yates, Rice, Comey were engaged in at the end of their term is another example.

                    Comey was obligated to inform incoming NSA Flynn of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign.
                    They ducked that obligation by improperly extending the bogus investigation of Flynn.
                    They did so because they knew Flynn was going to go ballistic and because Flynn was going to eat them alive for this illegal investigation.
                    All this is clear from their own emails.

                    We have ONE president at a time. Obama and Biden were conspiring to kneecap their successor – something that has never occured in the US before. But which democrats have no problem with.

                    Just as democrats have no problem with the military going rogue to kneecap a president they do not like.

                    1. “All we have is conflicting stories.”

                      It is illegal to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to Congress. Woodward and Costa also cannot have an actual transcript or tape of the phone calls unless someone broke the law and leaked it.

                      “In a closed session if necescary.”

                      They had closed sessions with Milley this week. Milley also offered to provide whatever documents the committee members needed, including the call read outs. So far, no one on either committee has suggested that he be fired, court martialed, etc., for these phone calls subsequent to the closed sessions.

                      For all these reasons, the “stories” are not on equal footing.

              2. “Did you even listen to all of the testimony?”

                Anonymous, the narrative you are pushing is incorrect. To do so, you are not proving your case but trying to assassinate the character of another. Though not wholly dehumanizing, that is wrong. Iowan did not have to listen to all the testimony. For example, you don’t, and when you post links, the links frequently are not read by you, are poor, dated and sometimes proved the opposite of what you say.

                You obviously have not bothered to review all the information involved with civilian control of the military along with the chain of command.

              3. Anonymous is a cherry picker of data and thereby dishonest. Let’s listen to some of the statements made before Congress.

                “You chose to talk to reporters instead of us, and that’s of great concern,” Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said to the joint chiefs chairman.

                I think this says it all and demonstrates that anonymous cherry picks details but is ignorant of what actually is happening.

                What is a complaint of Congress when Milley told journalists that China was afraid of a US attack?

                From Rep. Michael Turner to Milley:

                “You chose to talk to reporters instead of us, and that’s of great concern. No one in Congress knew that one of two of the major nuclear powers thought that they were perhaps being threatened for attack.”

                Another outraged comment to Milley was:

                Milley “spent more time with Bob Woodward on this book than you spent analyzing the very likely prospect that the Afghanistan government was going to fall immediately to the Taliban.”

                Wagner writes: “If he was willing to disclose things to those folks that he was not willing to disclose to Congress and in open session, I would then call into question his motives and intent”

    2. I believe I have a fairly good grasp of the military chain of command. Where does the Speaker of the House fit in? When the Pelosi calls Milley to ask about anything to do with the command structure and more specifically the competence of the CinC, shouldn’t he report the inquiry up to his superiors?

      1. Olly,

        Exactly. Where is Pelosi in the chain of command?

        Somebody should ask Milley where the President is in the chain of command. He doesn’t seem to know, or care.

    3. Rats fleeing the ship.

      Yes, they told the truth about the number of troops to leave in Afghanistan. But that’s small potatoes.

      Meanwhile, all three (Austin, Milley, and McKenzie) lied during the Taliban’s romp to Kabul, during the mangled withdrawal, and after the entire debacle. Now their playing CYA, and not one of them takes responsibility for the disaster that they were in charge of.

      A pox on both of their houses.

  2. Professor Turley says that “[YouTube] CEO Susan Wojcicki bizarrely claimed in a Bloomberg interview Bloomberg Television that free speech remains a “core value” for the company.” There is nothing bizarre about Wojcicki’s claim. YouTube is committed 100% to “free speech” and it is, indeed, a core value for the Company and for Alphabet. Professor Turley just needs to understand that YouTube and its parent company allow any any all opinions to to be freely expressed as long as they comply and comport with the views of the Elite Establishment, who properly determine what people should be saying, writing, and thinking.

  3. Stephanie Grisham Recalls Exchanges Between Trump And Putin

    Donald Trump told Vladimir Putin he had to act tough next to the Russian president for the cameras, according to the former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham.

    “OK, I’m going to act a little tougher with you for a few minutes,” Grisham says she heard Trump tell his Russian counterpart in Osaka in 2019. “But it’s for the cameras, and after they leave, we’ll talk. You understand.”

    Grisham makes the claim in a new book, I’ll Take Your Questions Now, which will be published next week.

    Mueller did not establish a conspiracy but stressed that he did not exonerate Trump of seeking to obstruct justice. Speculation over the two leaders’ relationship remained rampant, particularly over a meeting alone save for interpreters in Helsinki in 2018.

    In front of the media at the G20 summit in Osaka in 2019, with Grisham sitting nearby, Trump joked with Putin that they should both “get rid” of journalists who published “fake news”, saying: “You don’t have this problem in Russia.”

    Putin said: “Yes, yes, we have too, the same.”

    Trump later smirked, pointed at Putin and said: “Don’t meddle in the election.”

    Grisham was Trump’s third press secretary, an unhappy reign in which she did not hold a single White House briefing. Her book has been extensively trailed, titbits including a comparison of Melania Trump to Marie Antoinette.

    Edited From:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/28/trump-putin-stephanie-grisham-white-house-book
    ……………………………………….

    Key Sentence From Above: “Speculation over the two leaders’ relationship remained rampant, particularly over a meeting alone save for interpreters in Helsinki in 2018”.

    Trump had a 2018 meeting with Putin witnessed by only interpreters. This is remarkable because by the then the Mueller Probe was already well-established. Did Trump not want to cover his butt by having other officials present? Presidents, in fact, should ‘always’ have witnesses present when speaking to foreign leaders. Someone has to know what was said in case the president dies in office. In the aftermath of a president’s death, we can’t have foreign leaders claiming the late president made certain promises. And Putin is, no doubt, the type of foreign leader who might just claim certain promises were made.

    Another Key Sentence From Above: Trump later smirked, pointed at Putin and said: “Don’t meddle in the election.”

    Trump became the first American president to draw a Special Counsel investigation within his first 6 months in office. He then openly disparaged Robert Mueller on numerous occasions. So it’s odd that Trump was able to joke about the probe with Putin; especially in the presence of others. One would think the probe would have been so unfunny to Trump, that it’s the ‘last’ thing he would’ve joked about.

    1. Anonymous loves tell all books about Trump. Never for a moment does Anonymous think that there is large amounts of money to be made in a tell all. Even millions. Anonymous reads the National Enquirer and believes every story to be true. If it lends itself to Anonymous’ view it must be the most true story ever written.

      1. Some folk have no perspective and even less of a memory. One day this Anonymous should look at international affairs and see what Trump attempted to do with Russia. The Democrats tried to stop that.

        Which is more dangerous?

        1) Russia and China against the US?

        2) Russia or China individually against the US

        It’s a 50:50 chance of getting the right answer, but based on your comments, you will scr-w that up as well. The idea in world politics is to try and keep your enemies separated. Russia isn’t the threat that China is though you might have to see the Chinese flag raised over your house to see that.

    2. Has anyone noticed a pattern. Whenever Professor Turley writes about censoring of free speech by big tech Anonymous changes the subject. I have been looking for just one time when Anonymous will tell us about the importance if free speech in a free nation. It’s always Trump did this or Trump did that instead of a defense of one of the founding principles of our nation. Anonymous spends more time on a man of the past then on an obvious danger to our nation in the present. Like alcoholism once you have Trump Derangement Syndrome you always have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Anonymous wants us to think that she is guarding the nation against Trump while refusing to stand up for the nations most important freedom in the founding documents. Anonymous’ protection of the nation is hidden by a very thin veil of insincere concern.

    3. Prosecutors do not exonerate anyone. That’s not in their scope of responsibilities. To clarify, if they don’t have enough evidence to win a conviction the best solution is to drop the case or the investigation, but they don’t have the option to exonerate; it’s simply not and has never been a prosecutorial tool. That Mueller (or more likely one of the team members) added that commentary means nothing, legally. To clarify further, when have you ever heard a prosecutor exonerate anyone? Defendants are either found guilty or acquitted in court but never ‘legally’ exonerated.

      1. “Prosecutors do not exonerate anyone.”

        Then presmably you agree that Trump was lying when he claimed that Mueller had exonerated him of any wrongdoing.

        1. What Trump said, lying or not, is irrelevant. Prosecutors do not exonerate anyone. They may choose to exculpate if/when the evidence supports doing so and would be a wise decision on their part should that happen, but they never exonerate due to lack of evidence because they can’t legally do so. For the sake of argument, and we all know how much you like to argue whether you have or haven’t a reason to do so, let’s say Mueller said,” because there’s no there, there, I hereby exonerate the President.” It would be legally meaningless in addition to pointless since he never had the authority to exonerate or not. His only options are/were: present evidence to a Grand Jury who may or many not bring charges, indict the defendant directly, or drop the investigation. He chose the third because regardless of any personal animosity toward the President, Mueller did not find evidence, or at least not enough to warrant either taking it to the Grand Jury or indicting on his own authority, to justify having a trial. The report that was written was done so only because it’s required by the guidelines previously established buy the Justice Department. The contents of the report are only written as a public courtesy, meaning it could have only needed to say, “There just isn’t enough to try the accused.” Few people in the DOJ and the Democrat Party would have been satisfied with that report. Never the less, the word ‘exonerate’ or ‘exoneration’ would never have a legal meaning in the report simply because Mueller wasn’t tasked nor could he if he wanted to. You would have been fit to be tied and howling at the moon had Mueller literally, ‘exonerated’ Trump, and for the very same reason: he had no authority to do so.

          1. “What Trump said, lying or not, is irrelevant.”

            Our opinions about that differ.

            “He chose the third because regardless of any personal animosity toward the President, Mueller did not find evidence, or at least not enough to warrant either taking it to the Grand Jury or indicting on his own authority, to justify having a trial.”

            That’s false. He testified under oath that he never assessed whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Trump because of the OLC memo stating that a sitting president couldn’t be indicted. If you’ve never read that memo, here you go:
            https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

            1. “He testified under oath that he never assessed whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Trump because of the OLC memo stating that a sitting president couldn’t be indicted.”

              That is spinning and deceitful. You were never charged with raping young girls whether there was sufficient evidence to indict you because the justice rules are that one must have credible evidence before indictment.

        2. Then presmably you agree that Trump was lying when he claimed that Mueller had exonerated him of any wrongdoing.
          Trump was innocent, investigated, and still innocent. That is how I define exonerated. YMMV

    4. Key Sentence From Above: “Speculation over the two leaders’ relationship remained rampant, particularly over a meeting alone save for interpreters in Helsinki in 2018”.

      Can someone with the secret leftist decoder ring please translate this for me. All I see is the enirety of leftist though in the first word of the sentence. The rest is meaningless filler, to add to the word count.

  4. Putin is laughing his ass off.

    At who? Hillary, the Democrats, the American security state, and the media. Not to mention their fellow travelers on this blog.

    Why? Because Putin’s goal was to sow division and weaken America. Drunk with their lust for power and their hatred for Trump, Hillary and the Dems spent years concocting conspiracy theories (Clinton, Perkins Coie and the fabricated server, anyone?), funneling misinformation into our security state and secret courts (the Steele dossier, the FBI and the FISA courts, for example), and destabilizing a duly elected president (years of digging by Mueller, Weissman and their accomplices, fueled by breathless accusations and leaks). They helped Putin succeed behind his wildest dreams. And now that the Dems are back in power, their allies in the American tech industry have the green light to help Putin censor his domestic opposition.

    Putin is laughing his ass off.

    1. Yes, Putin is laughing his ass off. Never in his wildest dreams did he think that his investments in getting Trump elected would be so effective in weakening the US.

      1. When I read the comments from the Trumpists on this blog, I will give credit to Trump for one thing- he was brutally honest when he stated that he could shoot someone on (5th Ave was it?) and his followers would never convict him!

        His devotees are so brainwashed that he can do no wrong; it is a true testament to his powers as a conman and how many citizens of this country are truly disaffected. It’s simply amazing and absolutely frightening. And why they flock like moths to Turley’s flame when he is anything but a Trumpist is positively paradoxical.

        The Trumpists’ love affair with Turley, however, is going to end badly. Soon enough the gulf between what they believe and what he does will be revealed. When the prosecutions and civil trials of Trump, his associates and his followers begin, I will enjoy reading the comments expressing the sense of betrayal felt by his devotees when they realize that he will not condemn these trials as they do. He will either remain silent or ruefully acknowledge their legitimacy. Either way, it won’t go over well with the dead-enders.

        It is all too predictable. I just hope that someone will recall that I said it first.

        1. Jeff, I have a question for you and others of your ilk on this blog. I know you can’t speak for others, but I don’t want to address others who shall remain nameless, ( Svelez, Natacha, eb, Fishwings, Dennis McIntyre). So this is more rhetorical.
          I think that we could all agree that this is Turley’s blog. And because of that he gets to choose the subject matter of each post. Maybe I am being delusional in that assumption.. Why is it that when a subject matter is addressed in a way that dies not pander to a certain point of view ( censorship in this case ) or utterly ludicrous positions( Defund the Police),
          ” your side ” more often than not chooses to ignore the subject matter, chosen by the blog’s author, and go off on some tangential diatribe. Which almost always contains the word Trump? As you know, I am not a Trump fan nor a Trumpist. But I am really starting to think that TDS is a real thing.
          I know this is a legal blog. And not all of us are lawyers. But why not at least make an effort keep it on point? I know myself that I too have strayed off course, but only in the form of a response.

          1. See:

            Brubaker, Pamela Jo, Daniel Montez, and Scott Haden Church. “The Power of Schadenfreude: Predicting Behaviors and Perceptions of Trolling Among Reddit Users.” Social Media + Society, (April 2021).
            doi.org/10.1177/20563051211021382.

            Troll Personality Types and Motives

            Online trolls have been described as self-aggrandizing, individualistic, and unremorseful in their behavior (Coleman, 2014). Research suggests that trolls possess dark personality traits, including psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and Machiavellianism (Buckels et al., 2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Psychopathy has been characterized as lack of empathy toward others and the tendency to engage in antisocial behavior (Hare & Neumann, 2009), whereas sadism is that joy found in inflicting harm on others (Buckels et al., 2014). Buckels et al. (2014) found that both sadists and cyber trolls find amusement in causing harm to others and putting them in distress. Machiavellianism is the tendency to be more manipulative (Wilson et al., 1996); however, these manipulative behaviors are not as malicious or “remorseless” as those with psychopathy (Lopes & Yu, 2017, p. 69). Narcissism is considered a “self-serving schema” consisting of a “distorted sense of self-importance and grandiosity” that motivates people to make social comparisons in an effort to safeguard their self-esteem and receive accolades from others (Lopes & Yu, 2017, p. 70).

            1. Compare the above definitions to Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals”. The similarities are no coincidence.

              The Rules

              “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
              “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
              “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
              “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
              “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
              “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
              “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
              “Keep the pressure on.”
              “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. ”
              “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
              “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
              “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
              “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. ”
              – Wiki

              1. At least four items from that list are playing out now via the overreaction to CoVid:

                “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” The infection has a recovery rate higher than 99% for people who aren’t past age 75, immune-compromised and/or have known comorbidities; nearly 100% for children who aren’t obese. People over age 75 still recover at better than 92% on average.

                “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” aka intimidate science and medical peers to agree with the preferred narrative. Peers that disagree must be shunned, silenced and prevented from publishing their analysis of the same data.

                “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” Media and ‘experts’ total disregard for the known very high recovery rates and data that shows people who’ve recovered without ever taking vaccines have as effective and long lasting if not better protection than people who received the vaccine, would rather continuously ring the sadistic bell named “Cases, CASEs, CASES!!!!!” The unsaid implication that every case is an automatic death sentence until the patient recovers, then move on to the next batch of cases continuing with unspoken deaths implied.

                “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” and “Keep the pressure on.” Relentlessly portray unvaccinated people as unclean and unworthy of medical attention. Never give them the benefit of the doubt when they aren’t actually sick. Forcing a drug onto people who don’t need it is virtuous. Question why others aren’t freaking out as much as you want them to. Demand that others only exist to protect and service your healthcare and other personal needs, if you don’t, call them selfish for thinking of themselves, and not of you, first.

                There’s a meme with a clearly angry white woman with a caption saying: “IF IT ONLY SAVES ONE LIFE , I DON’T CARE HOW MANY IT COSTS!” I only wish I’d thought of it.

            2. Narcissism is considered a “self-serving schema” consisting of a “distorted sense of self-importance and grandiosity” that motivates people to make social comparisons in an effort to safeguard their self-esteem and receive accolades from others.

              Just like this from Silberman:

              I just hope that someone will recall that I said it first.

          2. Paul,

            In my case, my motivation is to expose hypocrisy. Please point out any post I make which you think I am attempting to go off on a tangent. But I suspect that I am trying to expose hypocrisy or inconsistency in an individual’s comments. I constantly do this with respect to Turley because I don’t generally disagree with his opinions. He does not apply his valid critique of the MSM to Fox, Newsmax or One America Network. We can understand his inability to criticize Fox because he is employed by them, but I don’t recall that he has EVER criticized Newsmax or OAN for their obvious advocacy journalism which he decries about the MSM.

            Why??

            I can’t help myself in pointing out his hypocrisy. It is not hatred; it is galling. I feel obliged to illustrate his intellectual dishonesty for the benefit of those readers who may be oblivious to it. I want to shame Turley by simply providing my good speech to counter his bad speech, i.e., hypocrisy.

            1. Hypocrisy = Jeff Silberman, yet he can’t see it in himself.

              By the way Turley has criticized the media on the right as well and that would include the ones you talk about.

              You are illustrating your own intellectual bankruptcy.

            2. Ok I will. Not going to go back into the archives but let’s see what happens. But if the criteria is anything that Turley posts, no matter what the subject matter, as long as he still is a Fox contributor, allows you to scream” HYPOCRITE”!! then this is an exercise in futility. I won’t play that game.

              1. Paul,

                I take the time to justify my reason for holding a mirror up to Turley to illuminate his inconsistency, and here is a response I got in reaction to my reply to you:

                “Hypocrisy = Jeff Silberman, yet he can’t see it in himself. By the way Turley has criticized the media on the right as well and that would include the ones you talk about. You are illustrating your own intellectual bankruptcy.”

                No explanation of how I am being hypocritical. This anonymous person claims that Turley has criticized Newsmax or OAN without pointing out any examples.

                This is typical of the kind of bad faith attacks I am up against. I should be given a metal to put up with such nonsense. One on my side, eb, has just said he is leaving the forum on account of such mindless abuse.

                If you don’t want to search the archives (which I often do), then just pay attention which media networks Turley levels his criticism and which he won’t. I trust you don’t deny that Fox, Newsmax and OAN are engaged in advocacy journalism just as much as the MSM! Let’s see if Turley’s criticism is even-handed. Is that not reasonable?

                It’s not a game to me. As I have said, I believe that Turley is a NeverTrumper like myself, so nothing would please me more if he would stop hypocritically ignoring the rage-filled prime time hosts at Fox.

                1. Jeff, I didn’t write the rebuttal accusing you of hypocrisy. Therefore I will not defend it. And I do agree that advocacy journalism occurs on both sides. But as I have stated before, the deck is stacked. As far as television , the ” Right” has the networks you spoke of. The ” Left” literally has every other entity. Including the non cable networks. Which is huge. In the print media, and I might be leaving out a few, the Right has, The NY Post. The Washington Examiner and on a smaller scale the Wall Street Journal. To my knowledge that is it. All the others are either centrist, Left, or far Left as in WaPo, NYT and L.A. Times and S.F Examiner. By the way, I read them all. Not in their entirety but a lot. Especially when I am constipated. To bolster my supposition of ” unfairness” but not using media, I will throw in basically all of academia, Hollywood and Silicon Valley. As a conservative I plead guilty to being jealous.
                  As far as Turley goes, I find that what he does on Fox very limited. He is a contributor. Not a host .And I don’t watch Fox 24/7 but my guess is that his total air time per week is less than one half hour. And correct me if I am wrong, but in the times that I have seen JT on Fox, his contributions have always been in the form of legal analysis. I don’t remember him referring to another network. Now the blog could be different. Other publications, maybe. JT does not appear to me to be a sell out. So by not criticizing
                  his employer, which nobody who wants to keep his job would, I don’t believe that rises to the level of hypocrisy And if you think it does. which I am sure that you do, he is far from the most egregious offender. The Fredo/ Andrew comedy act act on cnn was much worse. Stelter on cnn who supposedly a ” media critic”, never said a word. Unlike Turley , his entire reason for existing on the network is to comment on the media. Cuomo is a nightly host. Stelter has a weekly show. And their exposure on T.V. far outweighs Turley’s. Stelter’s non action is pure hypocrisy. But he is not about to criticize his own network. And now that there has been an a sexual assult accusation against Fredo, which appears dubious to me, not a word from the ” media critic”. Do you really think that if the same dubious accusation was made against Carlson, Stelter would be silent? There is the definition of hypocrisy.
                  My point is if you are going to impugn Turley’s credibility every time you don’t agree with the tone, tenor or viewpoint of something he puts out on his blog because
                  you have the ” get out of jail free” he is a hypocrite card because he is a Fox contributor, that is unfair.
                  I totally get your anger and desire to call out Trumpists. But again, my request to you and others on ” your side”, if the subject matter of the day has absolutely nothing to do with Trump, his policies, his personal history, his advocates, former members of his Administration or anything else Trump, PLEASE leave his name out of your comments. If the subject matter pertains to Trump have at it. Both barrels. And Trump is part of the word Trumpist.
                  I get your anger with hypocrisy .Personally I think that it is worse than lying. Everyone has lied numerous times in their lives. Myself included. But I make it my life’s mission to never be a hypocrite.
                  And as a gambler I will make another prediction. eb will not leave this forum. He has too much venom to expectorate.

                  1. Paul,

                    You say you did not accuse me of hypocrisy, but I want to show you what kind of mindless accusations come from your ilk. This person replied to me because he read my answer to you:

                    “On another subject Turley criticisms right and left wing media. That includes CNN and OAN both on different parts of the spectrum. His criticism of left-wing media is greater but the left-wing media has far more influence and circulation than the right so it would be fitting.”

                    I won’t reply to anonymous people as a matter of principle. But, again, I want to reiterate that I defy anyone to point out one single example of Turley criticizing Fox, Newsmax or OAN *in name* like he does CNN and MSNBC specifically. Put up or shut up. I don’t have to point to specific examples of Turley criticizing those mainstream networks because we are well aware of recent examples. If I am wrong in declaring that Turley ignores calling out Rightwing networks, show me.

                    The reason the Rightwing media is overshadow by the mainstream is the same reason 95% of climate scientists believe man-made global warming is a scientific fact and 5% are contrarian because they represent the petrochemical industry. Fox’s brand is to be anti-mainstream media. That is its raison d’etre. It has to find some fault in the mainstream media; otherwise, who needs to watch it? So it finds some alternative narrative to serve its marketplace of those who do not like what they see on the mainstream networks. Fox can never wholeheartedly agree with a MSM narrative because it would undercut their claim that MSM is fake news.

                    The culture is progressing. Conservatives want to maintain the status quo ante. Things inevitably change. Go watch “Fiddler on the Roof.” Tradition is no reason to maintain a way of life. Reason is the way forward.

                    I only watch 3 hours of Fox prime time to see if Turley appears. He has not appeared for months. Yes, his contribution is strictly legal analysis. Yet, what good did it do? Fox is being sued by 2 companies for defamation, that is, pushing the Big Lie. You suppose Turley is proud of his contribution? He never expressly pushed the Big Lie. His failure was not stating that it WAS a lie!

                    If you don’t criticize your employer when it does something morally wrong, you are a sellout. What else would you call it? A Trumpist- someone who will lie to protect his boss or leader.

                    I am not going to legitimize your Whataboutism by commenting about the CNN hosts. That they may be hypocritical does not make Turley less so. We are talking about Turley’s hypocrisy, not anyone else’s at the moment, so don’t deflect.

                    Being a hypocrite is tantamount to being a liar IF the person is well aware that he is ignoring conduct of his own or those he should call out in order to be consistent in his criticism. And a liar is not to be respected nor taken seriously. Not all my posts on the blog point out Turley’s hypocrisy, but I do when it is glaring.

                    Turley constantly does so himself! His overriding theme is the hypocrisy of Universities and other institutions or workplaces in punishing Conservative bad speech while not punishing Leftist bad speech. He may not use the word “hypocrisy,” but that is his point in addition to the point that there should be no negative reaction to bad speech EXCEPT more good speech. How’s that working in a society that has never been more polarized since the Civil War? While one should not necessarily lose their job, I believe in shaming and shunning. Turley never advocates for such treatment for those who engage in hate-speech. Good speech alone is ineffective against liars. Turley should address that fact.

                    I won’t promise not to bring up Trump since I believe in shaming Trumpists with their lies as they get disproven in the courts. Trumpets have got to admit that Trump is a liar, and the only way to do that is to embarrass them for continuing to maintain these lies. We can’t just move on without a reckoning over Trumpism. We can ignore Q-Anon believers because they are fringe, but Trumpism has a hold on too many people. We cannot survive as a country if nearly 1/3 of the population believes: there is a “Deep State,” the MSM is the “enemy of the people,” and “the only way a Republican loses an election is because it was rigged.” These narratives have to be exposed as lies.

                    I hope you are right that eb does not depart. I don’t relish being one of the few remaining people to hold the line on this blog against Trumpism.

                    1. Jeff, a lot here. First off I resent the accusation that I am of the same ilk as those who put forth ” mindless accusations”. And maybe just maybe, and I can’t speak for Turley , he doesn’t find fault with Fox , Newsmax etc. That just means he has a different opinion than you. Actually the fact that he doesn’t criticize other ” right wing” networks other than his part time employer Fox, makes him LESS hypocritical.
                      I am not going to address your climate scientist claim because I don’t know enough about it. But, 95% seems high.
                      And Fox’s brand is not anti MSM. It is an alternative to MSM. And I don’t remember anyone at Fox saying that MSM was fake news. Not rebutting a Trump narrative is not the same as endorsing it. Their job is to report. Not interpret. You yourself said that Jan.6th was a riot. Not an insurrection. But that has been the constant narrative on cnn and msnbc. Should all of their contributors be labeled hypocrites or liars?
                      As far as Turley’s hypocricy vs. cnn’s , I was merely pointing out the different job descriptions. Which matters .Especially if one is a ” media critic”. Could qualify as ” whataboutism” . How does it feel? And you say ” we are talking about Turley’s hypocrisy so don’t deflect”. You don’t get to put restrictions on my replies!! I can state my rebuttal in any form that I choose. You are not grading my term paper.
                      And there is no such thing as hate speech. There is speech that has a negative effect on Pu**ies. They should find a ” safe space”.
                      And again, it is not my request that you never mention Trump or Trumpists. I just would like to see a cogent rebuttal , which you are certainly capable of, when addressing a subject matter that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.
                      I will not make this request again because we are obviously not on the same page. Which is your right.
                      Be well.

                    2. Paul you say:

                      “Jeff, a lot here. First off I resent the accusation that I am of the same ilk as those who put forth ” mindless accusations”. And maybe just maybe, and I can’t speak for Turley.”

                      I purposely said “your ilk” because I took exception to your saying precisely that to me! You said:

                      “Jeff, I have a question for you and others of your ilk on this blog.”

                      I’ll not use “ilk” if you won’t…

                      You say:

                      “That just means he has a different opinion than you. Actually the fact that he doesn’t criticize other ” right wing” networks other than his part time employer Fox, makes him LESS hypocritical.”

                      It is NOT a matter of good faith opinion. The prime time hosts are lying in bad faith. Here are a couple of chyrons:

                      “The Left is Terrified of American Flags.” -Ingraham show

                      “Swalwell sends Goons to Harass Enemies at Home”
                      -Carlson show

                      “Dems want to Program Americans to Live in Fear”
                      -Hannity show

                      These are damn lies, and you know it. Yet Turley has the chutzpah to condemn our “age of rage” while he ignores these and other rage inducing statements on his very own network!

                      You say:

                      “And Fox’s brand is not anti MSM. It is an alternative to MSM. And I don’t remember anyone at Fox saying that MSM was fake news.”

                      Then you have never watched Hannity or Marc Levin. They say CNN and MSNBC are “fake news” CONSTANTLY as well as “enemy of the people.”
                      There are no “alternative facts.” Do we have to debate Kellyanne’s philosophy?

                      You say: “Not rebutting a Trump narrative is not the same as endorsing it.”

                      In the law and in common parlance, silence can be interpreted as assent where one would be expected to have a responsibility to denounce a falsehood, e.g., a journalist.

                      You say: “You yourself said that Jan.6th was a riot. Not an insurrection. But that has been the constant narrative on cnn and msnbc. Should all of their contributors be labeled hypocrites or liars?”

                      I don’t deny that CNN and MSNBC have their own slanted narratives. I concede that all journalism is advocacy nowadays. Just that Fox is more extreme. You don’t see the kind of inflammatory chyrons on MSNBC that I cited from Fox.

                      A difference in degree is a difference in kind.

                      You say: “And there is no such thing as hate speech. There is speech that has a negative effect on Pu**ies. They should find a ” safe space”.”

                      You are a real tough Goombah Guinea Wop, aren’t ya? You think that speech is only hateful if you are a p*ssy? I don’t think so.

                      (Note to Darren: I’m not actually calling Paul of Italian descent these slurs; I am trying to rebut his claim that hate speech does not exist)

                      Again, I invite you to remind me of my overuse of Trumpism on a case-by-case basis.

                      Good luck this weekend on your wages of sin!

                    3. What Jeff has provided as evidence is essentially three headlines, all that have a degree of truth and all that have evidence. Anyone can talk about exceptions because almost everywhere, those exceptions are found.

                      “The Left is Terrified of American Flags.” -Ingraham show
                      “Swalwell sends Goons to Harass Enemies at Home”
                      -Carlson show
                      “Dems want to Program Americans to Live in Fear”
                      -Hannity show
                      These are damn lies, and you know it. “

                      That is why the context is necessary, but Jeff doesn’t deal in context. He complains about the views of others that add context to their argument, but Jeff points, shoots and runs away. He is a hypocrite.

                      Jeff is terribly frustrated because the talking heads on the left talk foolishness that is later proven to be lies while those Jeff condemns add context to their arguments. Jeff is unable to respond on the same level. That is why Jeff descends to street-level point, shoot and run away.

                    4. “won’t promise not to bring up Trump since I believe in shaming Trumpists with their lies as they get disproven in the courts. ”

                      It’s funny how there is a time lag with so many accusations against Trump and the truth. Trump didn’t create the Russia hoax. The left did and lied. If Jeff wishes to exclude Trump because his derangement is overwhelming, take the Carter Page case and look at how the left lied there as well. In the end, when the left was exposed, there was no apology. The left made up new lies and accusations that were similarly exposed as lies.

                      People do not have to like Trump. They aren’t marrying him, and they don’t have to live with him. Most of his supporters support his policies which have primarily benefited the nation. Now, more than ever, with Joe Biden destroying America, many see the wisdom in dealing with policies rather than the man.

                      I don’t expect Jeff to examine the history and learn the truth. Like a cart-horse, he wears blinders so he can only see what he has been permitted to see.

                      As a final point, when Jeff criticizes others, calling them hypocrites. He is too deranged to note the hypocrisy that surrounds virtually every post he writes. Keep trying to shame those people that support Trump’s policies and those that support Trump. You shame yourself and sound like a fool.

                    5. Jeff for some reason this site will not let me reply to your post of 11;22 PM . But here goes.
                      On the Ilk thing – I admit to using this term first. But there is a slight difference in our usages. To my knowledge you have posted many times your agreement of message and to a certain extent loyalty to the mindset and opinions of those on this blog like eb. Many times. To my recollection, I have only posted an agreement one time with one of your antagonists. That was in reference to biology being a science. Which I hope we all agree on. If my memory serves it had to do with the ridiculous term
                      ” Pregnant People” as opposed to biological women. So one agreement does not an ilk make. But because it paints with a broad brush, I will no longer use it.

                      Chyrons and Hannity and Levin- It appears that I am at a decided disadvantage here. You watch WAAAAAYY more Fox than I do. Fox Derangement Syndrome? Seems a little weird that you spend so much time watching a network with which you take issue with virtually all of their hosts and positions. Seems a little masochistic. Research purposes?
                      And if you are accurate with your chyron descriptions, which I have no reason to doubt you are correct, they are disingenuous. However, those are statements of OPINION. By OPINION hosts. And as long as you brought up outrageous chyrons I have an example did not reflect opinion. But rather asked the viewers not to ” believe their lying eyes”. The cnn street reporter, in front of a burning building, wearing riot gear over the chyron ” Fiery, but mostly peaceful”. That had to be the most embarrassing screen shot in television history.

                      On the Italian slur- you left out Greaseball.

                      Which network is the most despicable in regards to advocacy journalism- I don’t have the time nor the inclination to go tit for tat with you on this subject. We just disagree. My guess is that it has something to do with the prism in which we discern our viewership. I guess we will just have to leave it at that.

                      On Conway- That was a stupid thing to say. There is no such things as ” alternative facts”. But I think we have to give her a break. It must be tremendously mentally draining to be married to a guy who freely associated with and supported a pedophile.

                      And lastly, I am off to a good start. I had Virginia + 3 on Thursday and Iowa – 3 last night.
                      Be well.

                    6. Paul,

                      You say: “You watch WAAAAAYY more Fox than I do. Fox Derangement Syndrome? Seems a little weird that you spend so much time watching a network with which you take issue with virtually all of their hosts and positions. Seems a little masochistic. Research purposes?”

                      I DVR 3 prime time hours. I used to watch the shows, but they are so preposterous now that I scan the shows looking to see if Turley appears or any interesting topics to actually watch. I hope it is not deranged to keep an eye on Fox so I know of what I speak.

                      You say: “And if you are accurate with your chyron descriptions, which I have no reason to doubt you are correct, they are disingenuous. However, those are statements of OPINION. By OPINION hosts.”

                      I took a photo of these chyrons, but there is no way I can share them here. I delete these programs. I am not suggesting that they are defamatory statements. It is true that a mere expression of opinion is not actionable under defamation law unless it insinuates that it is based on some undisclosed defamatory facts. The problem with opinions is that they often insinuate that they are based upon undisclosed facts! In the chyrons I presented, Democrats can’t be defamed as a group. Swalwell could be defamed, but the statement that he sent goons to harass his enemies is probably not sufficiently falsifiable.

                      Even if they are opinions, they are designed to enrage their audience to fear and despise Democrats. Is that going to make the country less polarized? Is it responsible to make the country more polarized? Is this not what Turley denounces- “advocacy journalism”? D you doubt that Turley would defend Fox’s right to make these statements yet argue that they are counter productive? But Turley turns a blind eye to such dishonest opinions.

                      As for the CNN reporting of “fiery but mostly peaceful,” I was not at the scene of the incident to challenge that characterization, but his opinion was not as intellectually dishonest as the chyrons I posted. This reporter may have downplayed the violence, but he was not alleging that Democrats as a party are trying to program all Americans to live in fear!!

                      George Conway supported a pedophile? Who?
                      How many games do you bet on? I won’t ask how much you wager. You have certain teams you wager on? Is it a gut feeling or do you study the injury reports ahead of time? I figure underdogs must be a safer bet on balance since they will always try to score even if it is a lost cause while the winning team will take its foot off the gas.

                2. “No explanation of how I am being hypocritical. This anonymous person claims that Turley has criticized Newsmax or OAN without pointing out any examples.“

                  There is no question among thinking people on this blog that you are hypocritical. Perhaps, you are one of the few that cannot ee it.

                  On another subject Turley criticisms right and left wing media. That includes CNN and OAN both on different parts of the spectrum. His criticism of left-wing media is greater but the left-wing media has far more influence and circulation than the right so it would be fitting.

              2. Good for you Paul. JT calls balls and strikes on the media accurately, regardless of what team is up to bat. Silberman’s team is horrible and getting worse by the day. He’s stuck in the stands heckling the umpire instead of demanding his team get better players. The problem for his media team is they are owned by a corrupt political party (again, Silberman’s) that expects them to write propaganda when the truth won’t fly.

  5. Big tech companies have become cats’ paws for authoritarians in government, allowing bureaucrats and politicians to violate the Constitution without blame.

  6. Radio Free Europe. The Voice of America.
    In days past.
    Some wealthy person needs to fund a free speech website.

  7. These big tech companies need to be broken up, they are far too powerful and have far too much public and political influence and bias. The are “Too Big To Survive”.

  8. Turley– “The only core value revealed in YouTube’s action is profit at any cost.”

    ***
    They will do anything and say anything to protect their rice bowl.

    Antitrust now. State laws creating liability for censorship and election meddling now. Crack the rice bowl.

  9. The standard defense of Google et al. in this situation is that these are private companies that can do what they want with their platforms. The standard remedy for the problem that this creates for free speech is to call for breaking the companies up via anti-trust laws. There is nothing objectionable about either of these arguments, and I support breaking these companies up because it is nowobvious that this must be done to preserve the possibility of free public discourse.

    The idea that is rarely discussed when addressing tech monopoly power over speech is the constitutional question of whether the government can indirectly control the free speech of private companies that it is prohibited from controlling directly, by effectively intimidating them with implicit and explicit threats to change laws in adverse ways that could really give those companies a hard time, e.g. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, hauling their CEOs repeatedly before Congress to testify and browbeating them to “de-platform” what the government wants them to suppress, etc. Glenn Greenwald ran a piece on this apparently new First Amendment issue once, but I haven’t seen anything else on it since. I’d like to hear what Turley thinks about it as a strictly legal question, politics aside. Can Congress do this under the First Amendment?

    Finally, where is Turley on Julian Assange? I just searched Assange’s name on the blog and the last mention Turley made of him was February 1, 2020. This is after he pointed out on May 26, 2019 that Assange’s case was the John Peter Zenger case of our time. It was just revealed that the CIA conspired to assassinate, i.e., murder Assange, who has been ruthlessly persecuted for exposing war crimes in a trumped-up trial that has no credibility as a matter of law and is revealing the legal system to be nothing more than an instrument of the powerful that is used against the less powerful. Turley’s credibility on free speech is downgraded in my mind when I think that he has not used his reach to denounce the case against Assange every day, but especially now, when the government has been exposed as no better than gangsters.

  10. Social media was all about publishing false information about Trump’s so called collusion with Russia. It’s looking like the real purpose for the lies was to establish a smoke and mirrors to distract from their own actual collusion. And, they will get away with it. As Trump would tweet…SAD

    1. Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia. Manafort passed along campaign polling data to Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence officer, data that would be very helpful to the Russian troll farms helping Trump. Roger Stone was in touch with Guccifer 2 re: the Wikileaks dump of DNC emails that were hacked by Russia, again to help Trump.

      1. I find the personalities interesting that say things that have been disproven and say other things that they have no evidence for.

    2. It’s looking like the real purpose for the lies was to establish a smoke and mirrors to distract from their own actual collusion.

      And it works. As Bezmenov stated, we now have generations of demoralized people unable to distinguish facts from fiction. It’s very SAD.

  11. There is no use in saying these words That you are about to read, that I have seen so many times on the Internet and you the reader of my comment have seen them so many times to. “Time to break-up big media companies such as, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc etc.” The reason I say there’s no use in posting these words anymore is because nothing absolutely nothing is ever going to be done about it as long as the party that is in Power right now remains in power.

    And if history is any kind of a teacher the Republicans will not do anything if they took back the House and the Senate and the White House. Look what happened when they held both houses before. Look at the things they ran on and they lied to all of us so we would vote for them so they could take the house and the senate. They swore up and down they would defund PLANNED-PARENTHOOD , NPR, The NEA, = NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS. Break-up big-tech. Put a stop once and for all to the power of the NEA = National Education Association.

    I can keep going and going. They held the house & senate and yet, they never wield power like the anti-democrat-party does. They have not had an actual ON-FIRE Party leader inside the Senate or the House of Representatives. Furthermore, up until Donald Trump came along, the GOP has not had a fire-brand party leader. Not in this Baby-Boomer’s lifetime. And the party needs, it needs an on fire party leader in both houses that will call out this evil vile party for what it really is that’s in power for right now.

    Call it what it really is. Put Biden front and center with the videotape that Tucker cross and played the other night of Joe Biden bragging, about what an “Unrelenting stream of immigration”, will do to our white race. What it will do to our Nation. And in the name of God, never 👎, ever, 👎 apologize for what he or she says!! NOT EVER!!

  12. (OT)

    The FDA’s Covid Deaths and Destruction

    Moderna developed its Covid vaccine in about *48 hours*. That was mid-January of 2020. (It was based on 15-years of research into the vaccine’s underlying technology.) Allow 3 months (worst case) for additional testing. That brings us to mid-April of 2020.

    The first vaccine was not administered in the U.S. until early December 2020. That means that Americans were subjected to 7 months of suffering and death — all because of FDA regulations. If you think that the FDA exists to protect your health, think again.

    “But three months from the design of the Moderna vaccine was April 13 [2020]. The second and third surges, the return to school and the long-dreaded fall, 225,000 more deaths and 50 million more infections — all of that still lay ahead. Shave another month off somehow and you’re at March 13, the day the very first person in New York City died.”

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-design.html

    1. “That means that Americans were subjected to 7 months of suffering and death — all because of FDA regulations”

      This is a lie.

      The FDA cannot grant emergency use authorization until the company applies for it. Moderna didn’t apply until the end of November, and it was granted ~3 weeks later.

      1. “The FDA cannot grant . . .”

        You seemed to have missed the entire point of my comment.

        It’s the very existence of the FDA — with its regulatory and police powers — that caused the 7 months of death and destruction.

        Here’s how economic freedom works: A company makes something, then offers it for sale. A customer buys it.

        When the government injects force into a free market transaction (as it does with the FDA), it violates a producer’s and a customer’s rights. Practically speaking, such regulations always cause economic destruction — in this case, massive disease and death.

        1. “It’s the very existence of the FDA — with its regulatory and police powers — that caused the 7 months of death and destruction.”

          You assume that, when you cannot possibly know relevant information, such as the date that Moderna would have made the vaccine available for purchase if the FDA didn’t exist and the percentage of people who would have trusted the process enough to use the vaccine. Your assumption also ignores the potential side-effects of your scenario, such as the number of additional people who’d have been harmed by other drugs in previous decades in the FDAs absence and even how various technologies would have developed or not during that time.

          “When the government injects force into a free market transaction (as it does with the FDA), it violates a producer’s and a customer’s rights.”

          You can believe that it interferes with their natural rights, but it doesn’t interfere with their legal rights. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” If you believe that the Constitution is wrong to grant that power to Congress, you can work to amend it.

      2. “You seemed to have missed the entire point of my comment.”

        As amazing as it sounds, he missed the point by miles. That is what happens when a mind is taught to think in the narrowest ways possible.

        That is followed by a set of banal excuses that miss the basics of a free-market system. Excuses of this nature are for failures.

        A solid case could be made for the release of the vaccines a month or more earlier. Anonymous makes all sorts of excuses. Excuses are for failures, and in this case, the ideas behind Anonymous’s response are a gigantic failure.

      1. They don’t prevent all deaths from Covid, but people who’ve been vaccinated and have a breakthrough infection are much less likely to develop severe Covid (where someone needs to be hospitalized) and much less likely to die from it.

        1. Other than ‘because the “experts” say so’, which studies have empirical evidence the patient’s own robust immune system didn’t prevent serious illness, didn’t prevent death without the mRNA spike protein? As I recall, nearly everyone who’s had the infection and recovered (minus those who were hospitalized) before the vaccine was available…said the effects were mild to moderate, ‘like having a bad flu’. I mean this sincerely, did the vaccine really make a difference in people who were already likely to have mild to no symptoms and would recover if they didn’t get it? If so, how is that clinically measured?

          1. If you’re trying to assess the extent to which people’s “own robust immune system” “prevent[s] serious illnesss,” then you shouldn’t omit those who were hospitalized with Covid prior to the availability of a vaccine.

            As for how we know that people who’ve been vaccinated and have a breakthrough infection are much less likely to develop severe Covid (where someone needs to be hospitalized) and much less likely to die from it, you can look at hospitalizations by vaccine status. An example: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm

            1. Your supposition is questionable for this reason: There’s no data showing how much the vaccine helped. So was it 1% helpful, 20%, or even for giggles sake 100%. If it’s never measured, no one can say definitively how much effective the vaccine helped, if at all.

        2. “. . . are much less likely to develop severe Covid (where someone needs to be hospitalized) and much less likely to die from it.”

          Which is a damn good argument for *abolishing* the FDA. A vaccine (from Moderna) 7 months earlier would have mean far fewer hospitalizations and far fewer deaths.

  13. Google is a for-profit company, and it should be no surprise to anyone that it makes decisions to maximize its profits. It is too big and should be broken up.

  14. Profit at any cost is right. Anyone that thinks Silicone Valley is their ‘friend’ is delusional. This is not new. I’m glad there’s more awareness now, but it needed to happen a looong time ago. Funny how in the current climate all mention of regulation has evaporated on the left, huh?

      1. Yes, she did. And, Liz ran on reeling the world-wide Leviathan size banks in breaking the back of each one. I never thought I would live to see the day that I would say this, but, I agree with Liz Warren completely on both.

        And, to quote somebody else that up until recently, had been a diehard lifelong democrat up until the last year to 18 months, James Howard Kunstler,

        “My party that I grew up being born and raised practically in, because of being born and raised here in New York, has turned out to be an absolute disgrace. An evil spawn that is destroying America. I mean how insane can anyone be to want to defund any, any police department! how insane can anyone be to want open borders for Christ sakes! and I never thought I’d live to see the day that I would ever agree with Donald Trump on anything or conservatives on much.

        And yet I have found myself agreeing with them in the last year and a half on more and more, up to the point that now I’m agreeing with both on absolutely everything! And I’m not agreeing with my old party, on absolutely anything! My party that I recently absolved myself of, publicly. How I would like to say that both my parents and my grandparents on both sides of the family must be rolling over in their graves for what I have done. But the truth of the matter is all of them would publicly declare themselves against this party that is still calling themselves a party of Democrats. A party of Democracy! What a flat out lie!

        They are neither, of either one! They are not for democracy, nor or they Democrats! To be a Democrat, one must stand for, Democracy. Conservatives use the word patriot quite often. So did my father and my grandfather’s, my uncles. Because they fought in the Korean War and in WW2, my father did and so did several uncles. On both sides, and both my grandpas fought in WW1. The war to end all wars, as it was called, as it was said back in the day. But there’s absolutely nothing about this party today that they would recognize. There’s nothing about this party that they could or would, condone. All the men in my family, both sides of my family, used to be as it was called, “ card-carrying members” of the Democrat Party.

        And, by that I mean, it means that they carried a heavily embossed card in their wallet that said, “Be It Known To All Men Of America, ———- (his name went on the line you see.) Is A Proud Patriotic Member Of The Beloved God Loving Democrat Party of the STATE OF NEW YORK BOROUGH —— (name of the borough went on the line.) By His Signature He Shall Forevermore Stand For God, For Country, For Party.”

        Today, this party has done all he can to drive a wedge between God and anything and anyone.

        Look what they did at the last Democratic National Convention. They would not even stand for the name of God or the name of baby Jesus. The party hates God today. And this party has done all he can to destroy the fabric of our country and that fabric is families. This party that my family, both sides of my family had been proud members of going back 100 plus years, if all of them was alive today, they would publicly denounce the party and swear allegiance to the Republican Party.”

        James Howard Kunstler.

  15. It is time to end safe harbor for these companies. If twitter, facebook, google, etc. want to selectively publish content, they should be held legally responsible for content they publish (like any publisher). If they want the protection of being an open platform, they need to be a open platform.

    1. Every platform “selectively publishes content” whether that means enforcing their terms of service (that stuff you agree to when you sign up) or editorial control (only publishing stories that meet editorial standards whatever those may be- ideological, grammatical, etc). So what do you mean “held legally accountable?” For what and by whom?

  16. Social media has proven unworthy of the power that it acquired.

    We know all the examples, but basically social media supports the strong against the week.

    Companies like Twitter are anti-democratic.

    Time to break them up in order to lessen the power of an authoritarian force.

    1. “Time to break them up in order to lessen the power of an authoritarian force.”

      So give the government authoritarian power, to combat an (alleged) “authoritarian force.”

      I see you’re not a fan of the law of noncontradiction.

          1. Since you don’t think ad hominem is an argument, perhaps you should avoid it yourself on other threads.

            1. “. . . perhaps you should avoid it yourself . . .”

              Invoking a second fallacy does not wipe out the first one.

              Why are intellectual eunuchs always so shrill?

              (And that’s not ad hominem. That’s a well-deserved insult.)

Leave a Reply