Goodbye Disinformation Board, Hello Disinformation Index. Less than a year after many celebrated the disbanding of the Biden’s Administration Disinformation Board, it appears that the Administration has been funding a British group to rank sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites. Gabe Kaminsky at the Washington Examiner previously ran a story on the Index. The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) has released its index and every one of the high-risk sites turn out to be . . . wait for it . . . conservative or libertarian sites. HuffPost or Mother Jones (which were also analyzed), but HuffPost made the top list of most trustworthy for potential advertisers. It turns out that the “riskiest online news outlets” just happen to be some of the most popular sites for conservatives, libertarians, and independents. [N.B.: After my Hill column ran, the National Endowment for Democracy wrote to inform me that it had decided to stop funding the Global Disinformation Index].
The GDI is designed to steer advertisers and subscribers away from certain sites, potentially draining sites of revenue needed to operate. The organization issues the index to “advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them avoid financially supporting disinformation online.” The State Department is partially funding the effort. The Biden Administration gave $330 million to The National Endowment for Democracy, which partially supports the GDI’s budget.
GDI warned advertisers that these sites could damage their reputations and brands: New York Post, Reason, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, One America News Network, The Federalist, Newsmax, The American Spectator, and The American Conservative.
The inclusion of the New York Post is particularly notable. It is ranked in the top ten newspapers in the country and the top ten digital news sites. (For full disclosure, I have written for the newspaper as well as many of those on the trusted side of the GDI ledger). The New York Post was suspended by social media companies over the Hunter Biden story before the 2020 election by companies relying on false stories appearing in many of the most trustworthy sites listed by GDI.
The allegedly dangerous sites also included Reason, a website associated with UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who was clearly gobsmacked by the warning. Reason regularly posts insightful and substantive analysis from conservative and libertarian scholars. With the diminishing number of such academics on faculties, the site is a relative rarity in offering a different take on cases and legal issues. The inclusion of Reason in the listing is absurd and shows an utter lack of objective and reliable criteria. For example, GDI says that the site offers “no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section.” That is obviously untrue as any cursory review of the site would confirm. The Reason articles contain clear indications of authorship.
Moreover, there is a reason why Reason does not have policies posted on the removal of disinformation: it opposes content moderation policies of groups like GDI on free speech grounds. Reason like my own blog Res Ipsa (www.jonathanturley.org) opposes disinformation “processes” used to limit free speech. As Volokh noted, “Reason does not specifically police disinformation in the comments section; that is perhaps an area where Reason‘s philosophy—free minds and free markets—clashes with GDI’s.”
The GDI reviewed sites on the far left like Mother Jones that routinely run unsupported attacks on the right and debunked theories on Russian collusion or other claims. For example, many of the sites ranked as most reliable only recently admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation. For two years, these sites spread this false story with little or no opposing viewpoints despite early refutation by American intelligence.
Even in 2021, NPR still claimed that “The laptop story was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations.” After a chorus of objections to the clearly false story, it corrected the story but still stated falsely that “numerous news organizations cast doubt on the credibility of the laptop story.” It never explained the continuing “doubt”? Media organizations that effectively imposed a blackout on the story had already confirmed that the laptop was authentic.
Likewise, sites like NPR continued to make the false claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr cleared Lafayette Park for a photo op long after the claim was proven to be categorically untrue. The government-supported news outlet also has been routinely challenged for making biased or false claims about conservatives, including Supreme Court justices.
Nevertheless, the New York Post and Reason are listed as dangerous sites while sites like HuffPost are actually listed at the top of the least risky disinformation sites. HuffPost is regularly challenged on false or misleading attacks on conservatives.
None of that means that I would put NPR or Mother Jones or HuffPost on a do-not-advertise disinformation list. These are sites with a well-known liberal bent just as other sites have a conservative bent. I am not here to denounce those sites any more than I am here to defend the other sites for their content. Rather the concern is that GDI is applying skewed measures to target disfavored sites. It is concerning that the sites at either extreme of GDI’s spectrum of disinformation largely reflect the political spectrum. (One exception is the Wall Street Journal, which is in the most trustworthy grouping).
GDI accuses sites like Reason of lacking transparency on issues like authorship but the group is fairly opaque on its own conclusions and standards. The explanations for tagging these sites are riddled with subjective and ambiguous terms. For example, GDI includes RealClearPolitics due to what GDI considers “biased and sensational language.” Did the reviewers actually visit the sites of Mother Jones and HuffPost in evaluating comparative levels of bias? Were those sites paragons of neutrality and circumspection?
GDI further says that RealClearPolitics “lacked clear and diverse sources.” Many of the sites ranked as most reliable (and thus worthy of advertising revenue) are routinely criticized for excluding conservative or libertarian perspectives. HuffPost and Mother Jones have a range of diversity that runs from the left to the far left.
The New York Times has led efforts to exclude opposing voices from the right. In 2020, the the Times issued a cringing apology for running a column by Sen. Tom Cotton. The Times forced out editor James Bennet and apologized for publishing Cotton’s column calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. (Bennet recently denounced his former newspaper for abandoning journalistic standards of balance).
The GDI disinformation index shows the very favoritism that it attributes to others. For example, in discouraging advertisers from supporting the New York Post, the group declares that “content sampled from the Post frequently displayed bias, sensationalism and clickbait, which carries the risk of misleading the site’s reader.” The line reflects the utter lack of self-awareness of self-appointed monitors of disinformation. There is no effort to explain what constitutes “clickbait” or “sensationalism” in comparison to more favored sites like HuffPost.
The fact that GDI reflects such bias is not particularly surprising. Disinformation efforts have long displayed pronounced political influences and agendas. Indeed, we have seen recent disclosures of how members of Congress like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) secretly sought to use disinformation claims to ban critics, including a columnist, from social media.
What is more troubling is the funding of the United States government for a group seeking to target conservative sites and deter advertisers from supporting them. I recently testified on the disclosures of the Twitter Files and the confirmation of coordination by the FBI and other federal agencies with social media companies in censoring citizens. I noted that the Administration played the public for chumps. After yielding to an outcry over the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, the Administration disbanded it. It never mentioned that a far larger censorship effort was being carried out with an estimated 80 federal employees in targeting citizens and others. While the GDI effort is smaller in comparison and effect, it is an additional facet of this effort. It is not known if the Administration has other programs of this kind and the Democrats continue to vehemently oppose any investigation into these free speech concerns.
In other words, the Board was just a shiny object that distracted from a far more comprehensive effort to censor and control speech on social media. I still would not call it disinformation but one might call it deceitful.
NB: After this column ran, the NED wrote me to emphasize that the Biden Administration did not direct its funding of the GDI.
(OT)
A majority of Republicans are Christian nationalists: https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/
The term is silly. Christianity is not a “nation”.
It’s not a silly term. As the discussion makes clear, it means that they think:
The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
The Article is a summary of a Survey Poll Questions that you have posted above: re.
The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation (?)
U.S. laws should be based on Christian values (?)
If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore (?)
Being Christian is an important part of being truly American (?)
God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society (?)
IMO: NO IT SHOULD NOT!
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Establishment clause of First Amendment often interpreted to require separation of church and state.
A Declaration of “America is a Christian Nation,” as it may be true by percentages, does not constitute the American Body as whole,
and therefore such a Declaration erodes the Bill of Right an Addendum to the U.S. Constitution [K].
BTW, white is not a “nation” either, yet white nationalists also exist in the U.S.
Frequent commenter George is an example of a white nationalist.
Black nationalists exist as well and they can be more dangerous. In fact every ethnic group can have their name attached to nationalism. You have a lot of empty words that are more deceitful than valuable.
63% of native born Americans are Christian and almost all that are Republicans like this country.
The comment is pretty stupid.
Not all Christians are Christian nationalists.
It’s quite worrisome that so many Republicans don’t support religious pluralism for the US.
“It’s quite worrisome that” ATS supports Stalinist ideas instead of the Constitution and American ideals.
Allan the Stupid, aka S Meyer the Troll Liar, imagines Stalin supporters where they don’t exist.
Anonymous, if you support more censorship then your thoughts are more similar to the thoughts of Stalin than they are to the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson. When you support censorship you support Stalins’ position on speech. Stalin also used the disinformation argument. When we consider such comparisons what other conclusion can we come to? Have you ever thought why they made freedom of speech the first amendment? The first thing they said was you can say anything you want and the second thing they said was you better get a gun. They spoke from having experienced government suppression of speech. They lived it you haven’t. When you support censorship you do indeed support the figures in history who have had the same position on the matter that you have.
I support the First Amendment. Try living in reality rather than your imagination.
Anyone that listens to you, Anonymous the Stupid, knows that your comment is a lie.
You’re deluded. And what makes you even more sick is that you prefer your delusions to reality.
My comments are backed up by your responses on this blog. Lies, deception, links that prove you wrong, pretend friends, self-deleted posts, and pure nastiness. Have I got it all? I probably left a few out.
I should add you sound Stalinist based on your posts. I will take a stab in the dark, but you act as if you are from a communist-type family, perhaps supportive of Stalin.
Pat yourself on the back. You have been successful in this endeavor.
As I said, you’re deluded. You imagine things that aren’t real.
ATS, I don’t imagine your comments, They are in black and white. You know where you come from and what you are. Everything points in the direction I noted.
You clearly do imagine things.
You imagine that I believe things I’ve never said and don’t believe. You can’t point to a single example where I did say them. You imagine that there are “pretend friends.” You imagine “self-deleted posts.” You are much nastier than I’ve ever been.
You believe these things, but they only exist in your imagination: you’re deluded, and you prefer to remain deluded. You’re like a flat earther: like them, you’re wrong, and like them, nothing will pull you out of your delusion.
The proof remains on the blog. You hide yourself behind an anonymous icon and name, but that doesn’t securely hide you from being observed. You can pretend you don’t use pretend friends, but you did. You can pretend that you have no part in your deletions, but that has been proven as well.
I am not nasty. I am truthful. When you wish to be truthful you can come out from hiding.
As I said …
You believe these things, but they only exist in your imagination: you’re deluded, and you prefer to remain deluded. You’re like a flat earther: like them, you’re wrong, and like them, nothing will pull you out of your delusion.
You can say what you wish ATS, but you are responsible for your image. You chose to hide your icon and name, so you have no credibility. Everything we are arguing about now we argued about before and many of those times I proved what I have said. You couldn’t fight it then and you can’t fight it now. There are enough people remaining on the blog that remember.
For those who don’t know, ATS is S. Meyer. He used to post as Allan and Anonymous. Now he posts as S. Myer and Anonymous. He lives here and is always looking for an argument.
Since it appears you want to be introduced, I will yield to your desires. You are known as Anonymous the Stupid for obvious reasons. A second blogger shortened it to ATS. You are known for deception and lying. If one links to something posted earlier https://www.outono.net/elentir/2020/04/22/lenin-numbers-data-and-images-of-the-crimes-of-the-first-communist-dictator/ the person will more fully understand ATS’s personal ideology.
How much I am here isn’t pertinent, but one can easily see that ATS wants to be the sole occupant of the blog 24/7.
You’ve never proved your claims. All you ever do is what you’re doing now: claim that you did it in the past. Which is why you’re not linking to this so-called “proof.” You cannot.
But I have ATS, in the past, and each time you leave with your tail between your legs. You hide yourself under anonymous in the hope that you are impossible to locate from the past, but you are not.
“Everything we are arguing about now we argued about before and many of those times I proved what I have said.”
You’ve never proved it.
Which is why you cannot link to a previous comment of yours proving it. All you do it run around claiming to have proved it, while never actually doing so.
“You’ve never proved it. Which is why you cannot link to a previous comment of yours proving it. All you do it run around claiming to have proved it, while never actually doing so.”
That is your game. You post under anonymous and then claim no one can prove what you said. It is difficult to find a link using anonymous and if it is found you blame it on another anonymous. That is the way you hide from the BS, lies, and deceit you purvey, But in the past, I did link and proved what you did. Who knows, maybe I will pull out a link again, but maybe I should first let you dig your hole deeper.
You: “Everything we are arguing about now we argued about before and many of those times I proved what I have said.”
Me: “You’ve never proved it. Which is why you cannot link to a previous comment of yours proving it. All you do it run around claiming to have proved it, while never actually doing so.”
You: “in the past, I did link and proved what you did.”
Where? Just link to that comment of YOURS (not mine) where you did it. You claim to have done it, but you cannot show where you did it. Because you didn’t do it. All you do is run around claiming to have done it.
“You post under anonymous”
So do you!!
“It is difficult to find a link using anonymous”
LOL, no, it’s not difficult at all. For example, here’s a previous anonymous comment of yours (Allan the Stupid / Meyer the Troll Liar) where you make a false allegation of “pretend friends”:
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/28/the-pelosi-tapes-the-video-of-the-october-attack-show-new-details-and-refute-sensational-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-2258356
You BELIEVE that. But your faith in it doesn’t make it true, just like flat earthers’ belief doesn’t make the earth flat. You’re deluded, and you choose to delude yourself. You like your delusions.
“You: >>“Everything we are arguing about now we argued about before and many of those times I proved what I have said.”
>Me: “You’ve never proved it. Which is why you cannot link to a previous comment of yours proving it.”
Why should I do so at this time? I did so multiple times, and it made no difference to you. Your lies continued. At this point, I don’t have to prove anything.
Those who have been here for a long time have seen the proof multiple times. Those that are new can read your posts and judge for themselves. You post anonymously to make it difficult to prove these things, but I have proven myself in the past and will do so again when I desire.
“You post under anonymous”
So do you!!”
There is a difference. I have a real alias that is known to everyone. When we have these spats, I also use an anonymous alias, so people don’t waste time reading unnamed and unreliable arguments. However, frequently you have correctly identified me, though there are probably two others that you mistake for me. Because of those errors, sometimes I post the same things under my S. Meyer alias to make sure others know who is commenting.
You are anonymous, but my comments based on your disclosures and my intermittent use of my alias make a difference. You are not credible. My credibility depends on what I say under S. Meyer or possibly what you disclose was said under S. Meyer. I am not afraid of people knowing what I said and quoting me. You are because you are a deceitful individual and a liar.
>”“It is difficult to find a link using anonymous”
>>LOL, no, it’s not difficult at all. For example, here’s a previous anonymous comment of yours ”
You are being deceitful again. You look for a link, find it, and then provide the link as proof of the ease of finding anonymous comments. Your proof is even more egregious because the comment you pick is recent. You are being deceitful. Even a monkey can do what you did.
Try this. A year or so ago, I predicted the deletion of specific posts quoting them from the blog. After deletion, they remained in e-mails which proved the deletion of comments on the blog occurred. The fact that I could predict this while you were melting down meant these were not random occurrences, but there was a reason for the deletions known to you. Likely when you want a comment deleted, you use a previously banned account for that deletion.
These meltdowns you have cause you to use “pretend friends” to protect your ego and deletions to be nasty to other bloggers because their posts that followed yours ended up deleted. Such incidents litter the blog, so they are real. After being embarrassed multiple times in front of the blog, you reduced such actions.
Try finding those predictions or something similar. Let’s see how easy that is. Be careful because, in the past, I copied some of those links and made you look like a fool.
“I don’t have to prove anything.”
As Christopher Hitchens said, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
You haven’t proved your claim in the past, and you won’t prove it now. You cannot prove it, as it’s not true.
“I did so multiple times”
So you claim, yet you cannot link to a single one of these past “proofs.” They exist only in your imagination.
“frequently you have correctly identified me, though there are probably two others that you mistake for me. ”
And you regularly confuse others with me.
“A year or so ago, I predicted the deletion of specific posts quoting them from the blog. After deletion, they remained in e-mails which proved the deletion of comments on the blog occurred. ”
And your proof that they were mine? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any. You simply BELIEVE it, you have FAITH in it, but you have no PROOF. You regularly confuse faith and proof.
“Try finding those predictions or something similar. Let’s see how easy that is.”
It’s actually quite easy, but (a) why should I do your work for you, and (b) AGAIN, that’s not proof that the comments came from ME, it’s only proof that you predicted some comments would be deleted from SOMEONE.
Tell you what: admit that you cannot prove that it came from ME (you simply have faith in that, not proof), and I will produce a comment of yours where you made such a prediction.
“in the past, I copied some of those links and made you look like a fool.”
And I think they made YOU look like a fool who doesn’t understand the difference between proof and faith.
“Tell you what: admit that you cannot prove that it came from ME ”
Here we have it, the admission from ATS that what I said about certain anonymous posters is correct.
He now relies upon my ability to link individual anonymous posts to my claims of the incivility of Anonymous the Stupid to blog members and the blog.
Those who didn’t recognize it earlier now can. ATS uses the anonymous label to avoid criticism for what he says. He now says another anonymous poster is at fault, not him, and further states I can’t prove ATS, and the anonymous poster I criticize are the same.
ATS is wrong. We can divide the anonymous posters into two categories, those on the left who are extreme, uncivil, and nasty, and those not in that category. Once that happens, obviously, numerically, one can tie up those egregious posts with mine.
We either have dozens of anonymous figures in this group that are arguing at the same time, or we have one with maybe an occasional exception.
It isn’t dozens because the back-and-forth comments leave a trail of evidence and patterns that almost always points to the involvement of one anonymous figure with rare exception.
Since the anonymous figure that replies to the title Anonymous the Stupid label creates distinct connections to almost all those comments, those comments at him are correct.
In summary, ATS admits what I have said is correct, and the numbers and logic prove him to be the one involved.
Now, with the admissions from ATS, there is little left to do. Those on the blog make the final decision. I can live with that.
Me: “Tell you what: admit that you cannot prove that it came from ME (you simply have faith in that, not proof), and I will produce a comment of yours where you made such a prediction.”
You: “Here we have it, the admission from ATS that what I said about certain anonymous posterS is correct.”
LOL, no, you’ve just moved the goalpost from claiming that “when YOU want a comment deleted, YOU use a previously banned account for that deletion” (a claim just about me) to a claim about multiple people (“certain anonymous posterS”). Not only can you NOT prove that anyone “self-deleted” (all you know is that Darren deleted them), and but you have no proof that the comments were mine. You simply BELIEVE it, you have FAITH in it, but you have no PROOF. You regularly confuse faith and proof. Do you also believe that Elvis Bug “self-deletes”? It’s a bizarre concept on your end.
“I can’t prove ATS, and the anonymous poster I criticize are the same.”
RIGHT. You cannot prove it. You only have faith.
“admit that you cannot prove that it came from ME”
“Me” is Anonymous the Stupid. You are admitting to the links demonstrating your depravity. That is movement in the right direction.
Now people have to decide whether those repetitive responses between anonymous and me represent a discussion between two individuals or dozens. Logic tells us almost always two meaning the second player is ATS.
“all you know is that Darren deleted them”
I don’t know who or how the responses were deleted, but I do know they were, and many others that had their responses deleted with yours know that as well. That was spitefulness on your part, and now you are exposed. Your anonymous name and icon no longer hide you.
ATS now becomes deceitful and lies. He says:
“>>I can’t prove ATS, and the anonymous poster I criticize are the same.”
>>RIGHT. You cannot prove it. You only have faith.”
ATS took my statement out of context, once again proving himself deceitful and a liar. I was paraphrasing what ATS said. I quote.
“He now says another anonymous poster is at fault, not him, and further states I can’t prove ATS, and the anonymous poster I criticize are the same.”
ATS is back to blaming someone else, which is a clear admission that he uses the anonymous name and icon to transfer the blame to someone else. Not only is he deceitful and a liar but a coward as well.
“I don’t know who or how the responses were deleted”
Thanks for finally admitting that even though you keep claiming they were “self-deleted,” you don’t actually know. So much for your “proof.”
“Thanks for finally admitting that even though you keep claiming they were “self-deleted,”
Anonymous the Stupid, I cannot predict the exact mechanisms though it likely has to do with an ISP of yours that was banned. I use the term self-deleted because you know the post will likely be banned and that has been proven to be true.
In the next post, I will demonstrate my prediction and the results. There are many more.
You self-delete
you use pretend friends
you lie and deceive
You have used other anonymous icons and sometimes have used a name. Do you need those pointed out to you as well?
You have also been caught by others.
Below is from multiple posts on the blog showing a prediction of posts to be deleted and confirmation of the deletion. This is one of many postings where ATS played his game.
—
Self-deleted comment: ATS:>>Darren is the one deleting comments. You can tell a lot about a person by how they “moderate” comments.”
SM: You are trying to trick people into believing you have no control over what is deleted. You do, and you caused others to have their comments deleted along with yours. That is not very nice or friendly to others on the blog.
I called you out on that before
“I expect the following comments to be deleted.
Anonymous the Stupid #1 “You’re obsessed ”
ATS has utilized WordPress’s censorship to his own advantage. ATS is not to be trusted.
Guess what Anonymous the Stupid, both your comments were deleted as I predicted. Your reply, “Inflammatory bs by S. Meyer.” was also deleted.
SM: I expect the following comments to be deleted.
Anonymous the Stupid #1
“You’re obsessed with anonymous commenters. Seek psych help.”
Pretend ATS friend #1 “He certainly is.”
ATS, how stupid of you to ask for proof when it is in black and white and when I have shown you my ability to reproduce what you said and did in the past. You have, however, changed your position from those things that were not done or said to how do you know it is me (ATS)?
Look at the present lengthy back-and-forth between the two of us. When part of such a series repetitively suddenly disappears along with all the comments following, one knows such a deletion occurred. Since you already accepted who you were in the series, one can see whose turn it was to respond.
It is funny that it is always your turn to respond when the chain of responses disappears.
“you know the post will likely be banned and that has been proven to be true.”
Nope.
You’ve predicted that some comments from one or more other people — not me — will be deleted, and sometimes you’re right about the comments being deleted, and other times you’re wrong about the comments being deleted, but you never KNOW who posted the comment.
You have FAITH, not proof, that they come from me.
Same for your other proofless claims. Your beliefs are FAITH.
Just like you know for a fact whether someone correctly identifies *you* as the author of an anonymous comment (or instead incorrectly attributes to you a comment that was written by someone else), I know for a fact whether someone correctly identifies *me* as the author of an anonymous comment (or instead incorrectly attributes to me a comment that was written by someone else). Over and over, you incorrectly attribute comments to me. It’s that simple. You have FAITH in what you believe but you’re wrong, and you’re so closed-minded that you can’t accept this.
“You have FAITH, not proof, that they come from me.”
You asked for proof, and I provided some. Now you are debating whether the deletions were of your posts or I was deleting dozens of others in similar threads. Everyone sees how our discussions lead to many replies, and when you had a meltdown you started with self-deletions to get even and be spiteful (like a child).
It is nonstop with you. You asked for proof, and I provided it.
Now you claim that you were not the anonymous person involved. But you were, and it is obvious to any person who looks.
Your reason for the anonymous name and icon WAS FOR DENIABILITY OF DECEIVING AND LYING.
We also know about your other names. Do you want proof of those? It is impossible to prove 100% without opening up the addresses on the blog, but if we provide 99% proof, that should be good enough because there are multiple proofs. That 1% doubt becomes a fraction that rapidly declines with each element of proof.
Keep talking, because the more you talk, the more you kill your credibility, presently near zero.
Will this post of mine be deleted along with yours because you planned it? I don’t think so, but that is what you used to do.
“It is impossible to prove 100%”
So you admit that you cannot prove it. You only have a conjecture that you have FAITH in.
“if we provide 99% proof…”
But you cannot prove it 99% either (you have no way to establish percentage likelihood). You only have a conjecture that you have FAITH in. Not PROOF.
And this is the thing about you, Allan the Stupid: if you were truthful, you’d simply admit that you believe it but cannot prove it, and you’d leave it at that. But you’re not truthful enough to do that.
>>”It is impossible to prove 100%”
>So you admit that you cannot prove it.
You, Anonymous the Stupid, who has been wrong on almost every major issue, are telling me I can’t prove it, though I have been correct in almost every major issue.
I don’t know for sure that Turley writes this column, but based on the preponderance of the evidence, I feel confident he does. That is the same confidence most have in agreeing that you have done all those things mentioned.
All one has to do is look at the number of posts you try to hide and the rhetoric you provide as an excuse. They can compare them to who you are talking to, and then they can laugh at ATS
I have adequately proven my case, and just like I can’t be absolutely sure about Turley writing his column, I can’t be absolutely sure about what you write. However, I am sure enough that I feel confident saying what I have.
In any event, you now accept what I have said all along, and the only thing you have left is that you post under an anonymous label to make sure no one can be absolutely sure when it is your post.
You are a coward and can add that to your deceit and lies. As an anonymous poster, you have zero credibility. I’ll leave it to the other members of the blog to make their own opinions but I wonder how stupid you think your fellow bloggers are.
Thinkitthrough has already responded to you appropriately. It is not what I imagine or what I say that makes you appear to be a type of Stalinist, but rather, it is your deceit and lack of truthfulness seen by others that portray you in that light.
Just one more enormous waste of taxPAYER$’ contributions to extra-big government.! UGH!
(OT)
Parts of the Fulton County special grand jury report on its “investigation into possible criminal interference in the 2020 general election in Georgia” have been released.
“A majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses.”
“We find by unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23683438-2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-order-of-the-judge-8
Most of the report remains confidential until Fani Willis decides whether to indict anyone based on the findings.
OT:
“We find by unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election,” the grand jury wrote.”
Trump was lying. As evidence continues to mount there was no mass voter fraud in 2020. Trump is looking like a massive liar, as he should.
Svelaz – First, it is not necessary to prove that there was “mass voter fraud” to have changed the election. Small effects in a few swing states, e.g. Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, could have changed the outcome. Second, the phrases “mass voter fraud” and “widespread fraud” are rhetorical devices to avoid looking at what happened in 2020. The more accurate phrase would be “irregularity” or “abuse” of the voting system itself (dealt with by Mollie Hemingway in her book, “Rigged”), aided by corrupt outside influence, such as the suppression of “bad news” for Biden (e.g. the laptop) and the illegal financial help Zuckerberg gave to election officials in Democratic districts in Wisconsin. Third, even if these factors did not decide the election, Trump and Republicans have the right to complain about them.
Edward, Trump and republicans constantly used “mass voter fraud” and “widespread fraud”. They used those rhetorical phrases to make their claims. They also cited a LOT of evidence proving such claims, but evidently they never produced the evidence they claimed to have. That’s why Trump was lying all along. He has no evidence. Just rhetoric.
Svelaz: thank you. In more-recent revelations in this vein, Trump hired a company to investigate his spurious claims of widespread voter fraud in swing states, and it came up with nothing to substantiate any of the bogus claims, like dead people voting, people voting multiple times, registrations at nonexistent addresses, foreigners allowed to vote who weren’t registered, ballot harvesting and dumping…nothing Trump claimed proved to be true, and after being so advised by this outside contractor, Trump couldn’t continue to claim these things were true. That didn’t and still doesn’t stop him.
Trump can engage in all the legal speech he wants, including his regular complaining, but some speech (e.g., fraud) is criminal, and this grand jury “was impaneled to investigate a specific issue: the facts and circumstances relating directly or indirectly to possible attempts to disrupt the lawful administration of the 2020 presidential elections in the State of Georgia.”
Hopefully we won’t have to wait much longer to see whether Willis issues indictments.
Anonymous – even if Trump said that there was widespread fraud, he is not “committing a fraud.” Fraud is a civil tort that has five or seven elements (depending on the authority), including a specific victim. Fortunately, it is not yet a crime to express a wrong opinion. Incidentally, in the quote I read from Trump, he asked a Georgia official to “find” about 3000 votes. That is not an unreasonable request. When voting is dominated by mail-in ballots, it is not impossible that votes will be misplaced. For example, it was recently reported that the election result for city officials in Berlin, Germany may be changed by the discovery of lost mail-in ballots. See “German Election Do-Over Result Already in Doubt as Hundreds of Postal Ballots Discovered”, Breitabart 2/16/23. I believe that Maricopa County has also had a problem with misplaced mail-in ballots.
… he is not “committing a fraud.”
Who are you quoting there? (Not me. I didn’t say or imply that he’d committed fraud. Do you know what “e.g.” stands for?)
You and I have different opinions about whether his request was reasonable, but neither of our opinions matter legally. Neither of us is privy to the GJ testimony. We’ll just have to wait and see whether Willis indicts him, and if so, for what.
“some speech (e.g., fraud) is criminal”
Your statement was implicit. Deceit is your strong point but you are not smart.
It’s not implicit. “e.g.,” stands for “exempli gratia,” meaning “for example,” so “some speech (e.g., fraud) is criminal” simply means that fraud is an example of criminal speech.
Then what was the point of your discussion? You are being deceitful.
Svelaz, please inform us of any comment you have made about the claims of stolen elections by Democrats. Knowing that the following information is out there one would think that you might steer away from the stolen election narrative coming from both sides of the isle. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s. I understand, it feeds your purpose.
The operative words are “that could result in overturning that election”. That means fraud was exposed, but not enough, and since it went to a grand jury where the opinion was not universal, it seems likely there was a lot of fraud.
Intelligent people realize how hard it is to convict people of fraud even when it is clear they committed it. Let’s see if charges against some who committed fraud are made. Then we can see if they turn on their buddies and increasingly reveal the amount of fraud that did occur.
There is no end to your ‘flat affect’ that takes over your mind when you read the written word that satisfies your tawdry desires.
the opinion was not universal
“We find by unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election.”
You made the same mistake Svelaz made. You are two peas in the pod that can’t get things right.
Try harder. Read what was said above.
The unanimous opinion? Was it from that made up fantasy GJ? But just like a real grand jury
, they only have info spoon fed them by the prosecution
“Reason regularly posts insightful and substantive analysis from conservative and libertarian scholars. “
If only Turley was more honest with his characterizations. Reason is not just a site that posts “insightful and substantive” analysis. Reason is funded by special interests that use the ‘credibility’ of some scholars to lend…credibility to their causes. Reason is funded. By the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil, Big tobacco, and other industries that seek to peddle disinformation cloaked in the credibility of these scholars. The lack of transparency in authorship is in relation to who is funding these “scholars” analysis or even if it IS their own analysis and not some scripted “report”. This is where a lot of “opposing views” or “contradictory” data are produced. This is why GDI has them in their list of groups that peddle disinformation.
Ironically Reason does what Turley complains GDI is doing, They are just putting out information for anyone to use and make up their own mind. It’s more likely Turley is being paid to sling mud at this organization to blunt it’s credibility.
” Reason does what Turley complains GDI is doing”
Only ignorant people can’t see the difference. One is privately funded. The other is funded by government. It is this type of ignorance that makes posts written by Svelaz so worthless.
“Only ignorant people can’t see the difference. One is privately funded. The other is funded by government.”
S. Meyer strikes again. The facts don’t change because of where funding comes from. One is partially funded by government ( a very small amount) the other is funded by special interests with a greater interest in peddling disinformation.
I know my reply will go over your head.
“S. Meyer strikes again.The facts don’t change because of where funding comes from. One is partially funded by government ( a very small amount) the other is funded by special interests with a greater interest in peddling disinformation.The facts don’t change because of where funding comes from. One is partially funded by government ( a very small amount) the other is funded by special interests with a greater interest in peddling disinformation.”
It is wrong for the government to fund the politics of one side of the aisle. You would object to such funding directed to an organization promoting The Wire. It doesn’t make a difference how much money is involved. You do not understand the difference between right and wrong. You proved yourself to be immoral many times on this blog.
No, I don’t expect this response to reach your inner brain. Your intellect is too low, but I hope those in the background see what a fool you are.
Svelaz, break out of the bubble. Exxon Mobil has advertised in The New York Times. What the GDI is doing is telling us that the only news outlets that we should believe are the news outlets on the left. They have no concern for people making up their own minds. In effect they are saying we should not trust any news makers except those that they recommend. They are free to do so but using my tax dollars to support their secret effort should not be allowed. It is not acceptable that they speak through my labor or my name.
TiT,
“What the GDI is doing is telling us that the only news outlets that we should believe are the news outlets on the left.”
You’re lying TiT. That’s not what the GDI is doing. All they did was list news outlets according to rank. They are not telling anyone what they should believe. They are only posting the rank according to how much disinformation they produce. The rest of left up to each individual advertiser to decided whether to put ads or remove them. Don’t start making stuff up because you can’t provide a substantive argument. They are not saying what you are claiming.
“All they did was list news outlets according to rank.”
The printed word doesn’t reach the brain.
Funded in part by soros’s OSF – we know it’s a project in the best interests of a non-domesticated populace.
OSF is a litmus test for anything that is wrong. If you ever need to know an answer to something, check with those a@@holes and simply state the opposite. Them and the political whores that surround them are the least necessary, most evil things on this planet.
There are several commenters who have voiced no surprise at the attempt of the Biden Administration to censor those who they do not agree with. It’s no surprise when they operate in secrecy. Stealth is their common way of operating. On occasion they just come right out and say that a disinformation commission would be a good idea. Once they get exposed they just creep back into the shadows to do their deeds after exclaiming that they are surprised that the people don’t think that their plan is a good idea. How dare you go against the gods!
TiT, what this organization is doing is not censoring anything. All they are doing is posting a list that anyone can choose to use or not. Turley is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Svelaz, what part of supported by your tax dollars do you do not get. You think it’s a mole hill just like you think it’s alright for the FBI to censor what people can say when they write checks for 3.5 million dollars of my money to Twitter. Would you be happy if your tax dollars were being given to Fox News? Your attempt at “there is nothing to see here” is not only dishonest but it’s laughable and people are laughing.
What can be done about this?
@JJ
I’d like to know that, too. This is a foreign power interfering with the functioning of our society, apparently on our tax dollar, I don’t care if it’s another ‘Western’ country (and in my opinion, Britain, the EU – they are *teaching* the rest of the West how to fascist, their governments have fully capitulated to globalism at this point). It is evil beyond belief – still think the globalists aren’t a thing? Did people in Europe in the 30s think genocide was a thing?
We have a first amendment, and our current administration is intent on destroying that by whatever means are available. The only thing I can think of is to reign in Silicon Valley stateside. Nobody has the guts – this is all very profitable, to a great many people. Our modern democratic party are basically the Mafia IMO, and I honestly do not know how bad things have to get for the average Joe to wake up to that fact. It is beating a dead horse at this point, but a great many of those people still think they are voting for JFK, and if they don’t everyone will literally be white and male or die; and the young have been brainwashed to fear anything and everything that makes them uncomfortable. I appreciate the stalwarts that insist patriotically, ‘We’ll just take the country back! the Constitution will hold!’. Will it? We are not talking about bullets or people that care about laws, courts, societal repurcussions. They have achieved all of this with nary a whisper, let alone the scent of cordite.
Risky Business: Government-Funded Group Targets Conservative Sites as “Riskiest Online News Outlets”
Is anyone surprised? S@@tlibs will support this all while claiming support for the First Amendment and freedom of expression.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Maybe a “Ministry of Truth” is in order?
Don’t worry s@@tlibs, you’ll get your precious and sought after European “hate speech” laws soon enough.
From the UK Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9286731/Being-offensive-OFFENCE-Police-apologise-chilling-slogan.html
And I know, s@@tlibs, you think I am a ‘nazi’ or some other type of extremist for writing this.
JT, I guess you are a ‘nazi’ too.
antonio
Define a fascist act.
This is that.
Corporatist.
Where is the surprise here?
I’ve been in a constant state of ‘shock and awe’. .. ever since Karl Rove (aka the ‘turd blossom’) said the U.S. ‘was an empire now’ and that we (loosely speaking) make ‘our own reality’.
* “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” ~ the Turd Blossom
I’ll give the Biden Administration, and their loyalists in the mainstream media, credit for persistence at least. They are truly committed communists who want to tear down free speech in the United States and all in the name of DEI I guess. It’s well past time to turn the Nimitz into the wind IMHO. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article and for keeping this issue front and center. Much appreciated.
Mother Jones was the first website to ever ban me from commenting. It happened almost instantly. One comment, and I was history less than 20 seconds after I hit the “post” button, followed by being buried under a huge, stinking pile of noxious ad hominem BS disguised as “replies” to which I was not permitted to respond.
It bothered me, at first, as I suspect it would bother anyone. I’ve never yet met a person who approved of injustice when they were on the receiving end. But I soon learned that it was a regular practice all across the web and, in many ways, a badge of honor, given the statistical FACT that most comment sections at most websites are pure, no-rules trash (despite how they might claim otherwise concerning rules), comprised of more raw ignorance than it’s healthy to contemplate. .
From those experiences I learned that if you don’t unintentionally anger or annoy somebody sometime on these “news” or “political” websites, then you probably aren’t saying anything worth paying attention to. But I also learned fairly quickly that when it happens at a disreputable garbage site that only pretends to have rules, it saves a big bunch of time to just head for the exit (not that they give you a choice) and leave the metaphorical pigs to wallow in their own not-so-metaphorical mud.
Aside from Mother Jones, over the years (in no particular order) I’ve been banned by ABC, the New York Times, The Conservative Treehouse, The Federalist, Jonathan Turley’s Res Ipsa Loquitur, Townhall, The Huff Post, RedState, USA Today, and certainly a number of others that aren’t coming to mind at the moment — spanning the entire spectrum of what passes for political philosophy, from left to right — ALL of which had deceptive anti-free-speech practices while righteously pretending otherwise, most of which are still maintained one way or another, the most-bogus of all being the websites with hired commenters used to attack and defame disfavored commenters who dare to disagree with something said in an article. Those lowest-of-the-low hired commenters, of course, know who they, themselves, are, and that they are by far the biggest frauds on the web.
I think it’s safe to say that there are few things more bogus than a bogus comment section. They are the phony 20-dollar bills in the world of counterfeit political discourse in our once-great nation, making a complete mockery of the whole concept of free speech. Trying to say something honest, relevant, or well intentioned at such sites populated with such utter frauds is like trying to recite Hamlet to the Clantons without Wyatt Earp or Doc Holiday around to protect GENUINE free speech.
I’ve never been banned. Ever. I’m as smooth as Tennessee whiskey and sweeter than strawberry wine.
*I do have a couple dozen ‘request/comments’ for clarification @ the NYT still ‘pending approval’ .. . since Feb. 2022.
My experiences at the NY Times date back to early 2009 and saw a number of “Public Editors” come and uncerimoniously go over the years while the NYT commenting rules slowly disintegrated as the 2016 election approached, finally collapsing entirely in earlly 2015 when it was suddenly discovered (March 4 or 5, 2015, is my recollection) that she had a very large illegal stash of federal records (I believe the total was more than 30,000 that she destroyed without ever turning over) that the National Archives didn’t even know existed.
At that point it became necessary for the NYT to silence once-welcomed voices that were pointing out the fraud and criminality of Hillary’s conduct under statutes such as 18 U.S. Code § 2071 — although critics of Hillary were still allowed IF they were stupid enough to be obviously foolish, such that posting their comments painted any non-Hillary fan as a troglodyte.
@Ralph
I hate to agree, but yeah, nobody is going to ban you here, you may have been subject to the same software glitches on other sites (technology is not magic, far from it), and I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt, particularly given my previous statements to you. In that spirit: I am getting the sense that you simply don’t understand how this stuff works with spam filters, rules, and yes, algorithms, and you haven’t actually been ‘banned’ anywhere, can’t believe you are still going on about that. Not going to respond to you anymore, and at least on in this space, that is a personal decision, not because you have been blocked from posting, as we all see your comment and have, though to each their own, made decisions based thereupon.
Either you’re a lying fraud or you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t care which.
“Ralph, … you haven’t actually been ‘banned’ anywhere”
You have zero way of knowing that about Ralph’s comments on other sites.
People certainly do get banned from commenting on many sites. Darren has banned people here. Do you need an example of Darren saying so?
Another lying degerate fraud heard from.
I didn’t say anything false, much less a lie. You do understand what quotation marks mean, right?
My last reply wasn’t directed at you. This has gotten too confusing, with other things going on elsewhere.
I wish this garbage sitte had a blocking feature so that I could subtract some of Turley’s obvious hired trolls.
Ralph, if you’ve been banned from so many comments sections you need to get a life. I comment often on this blog but I realize that staying angry all the time is really not that much fun. It’s not a good thing if you can’t lighten up once in a while. Don’t let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.
Typicall total BS ad hominem bullsh*t.
“It turns out that the “riskiest online news outlets” just happen to be some of the most popular sites for conservatives, libertarians, and independents.”
NO! Say it ain’t so. Haven’t these two groups been complaining about censorship issues? The fact that the administration is sneaking behind closed doors to continue their attempts to quiet opposing views is totally predictable.
Dear Prof Turley,
This is just more censorship by surrogate.. .
*Goodby Disinformation Board .. . Hello YellowBrick Road.
And who are the real Fascists?
Operation “choke point” was the Federal Govt, through their regulators pressuring lending institutions not to lend money to anyone connected with manufacturing, selling, supporting Fire Arms.
There are literally 100’s of these backdoor interferences by govts at all levels.
“[T]he Administration has been funding a British group to rank sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites.” (JT)
The Left’s new tactic for imposing censorship, translated into honest English:
Don’t want the Scarlet mark of “disinformation?” Don’t want your reputation, creation, career, livlihood destroyed? No? Then tow the line.
Somewhere, the Mafia are smiling.
Toe. Towing a line is something else entirely.
“Toe.”
Ugh. Thanks for the correction.
The problem is that We don’t have enough Ben Bradley’s [Editor: The Washington Post, 1965 to 1991]
Don’t expect David Muir (ABC World News Tonight) or Norah O’Donnell (CBS Evening News) or Google (News)
to actually have real “Breaking News!”. By the time the Story is washed over by Legal, Censorship, and Ad Executives,
it is as stale as Leftover-Biscuits.
Because We don’t have enough or any for that matter “Ben Bradley’s” at the Helm of the gargantuan News Networks,
the few Brave Soles that do dare to publish are drown out. Should they do gain traction (Like Matt Talibi (Author) for example),
They are co-opted, contained, and utilized by the Gov. and Media Giants. The business of News truly is a David vs Goliath situation.
Social Networks (Twitter) can be messy, as the Word spreads from Mouth-to-Mouth the Story gets lost in context.
So ‘trust worthiness’ is a bit elusive, Facts are misconstrued, so Big Media outlets can easily change the Truth (Lie).
Remember Rudy Giuliani saying “the Truth is not the Truth”. More often than not these Days, Ain’t That The Truth.
WE have an Orwellian State Department (Foggy Bottom & CIA) running the Command over the FBI,DHS,DOD, …
The Brookings Institution and the Political Party in Charge set the Mandates over the Media System.
The Die is Constitutionally Cast. They set the Narrative, We are to swallow every spoonful or get Canceled.
If a Watergate like event happened under JFK Ben Bradley, a personal friend of the President, would have ignored it, fired Woodward and the other joke and the event would never have happened. Please don’t lionize Bradley, he is another Democrat in a position of power in the media.
Exactly. Cronkite was a fraud too. These people’s reputation for honesty is fueled entirely by flimflam and nostalgia.
[hullbobby Milhouse] The point was that We do not have an Editor that has the BALLs to Publish the Truth.
Ben Bradlee or not, that is where We are at Today.
Cronkite, Murrow, Schieffer, Huntley, Mudd, Rather, Sevareid, Brinkley, Chancellor, Jennings …. Hoda & Jenna, They are Network Entertainers.
[hullbobby Milhouse] Haven’t seen any Major Paper/Network Editor with Balls since Bradlee, If You’ve got one, I’ll start reading.
Ben Bradlee – Career at The Washington Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bradlee#Career_at_The_Washington_Post
The news divisions are all managed by the entertainment divisions of the conglomerate that owns them.
Guess what? Selling movies is a global market. The largest international entertainment market is China. That’s why movies get made and edited to appease their Chinese Masters. Ditto for the NBA. LeBron James (forward, for theSocial Justice Warriors) cannot be forced to answer, for his Chinese Master’s, abuse of citizens and exploitation of slaves.
Svelaz has another long, pedantic, arrogant and ignorant reply to this important column. Doesn’t it seem strange that as we hear more and more about government interference in media, all media including social media and print news media, we have a guy like Svelaz that has an answer and a defense for EVERY attack on free speech and our right to gather the information we need to stay informed.
It is becoming more and more apparent that Svelaz may possibly be a government plant put on this site to do the Democrats or the intelligence community’s bidding.
Now Svelaz will reply with 100-200 comments, further evidence that the guy is paid for this tripe.
HullBobby,
Just scroll past.
You are right Farmer!
I also scroll past every anonymous comment. It’s been working for me.
Olly, I can’t just scroll past. Commenters such as Svelaz and Anonymous are doing their best to end our god given rights. They are part of a dangerous movement and they must be opposed. If I thought it was just a few far left lovers of control of the populace I wouldn’t bother but they are a few of the many and they must not go unchallenged. You may not think so but the younger generations are listening and those of us who have seen the fruits of their efforts in history need tell of the devastation brought about by their ideas when they have been put into practice. Whistling past the grave yard will not suffice.
Thinkitthrough, you are right. These people must be exposed for what they are It is for those in the background that sit and listen.
I can’t just scroll past…Whistling past the grave yard will not suffice.
TiT, Don’t assume that’s what I’m doing. Those commenters will defend abuse of power and the infringement of our God-given rights, but they will never succeed in “ending” them. I’ve followed JT’s blog for over a decade primarily because he’s never wavered in his commitment to expose the various ways those rights are being abused. Anyone following him will see that. They’ll also see the likes of Svelaz and Anonymous doing their level best to defend the abuse. If you find value in engaging them directly, then by all means do so.
Upstatefarmer, he never does. You can tell because he always has time to whine about what i posted. He has to read it I order to be able to whine about it.
Hullbobby can’t handle the fact that ere are different points of view and those who express them seem to trigger some sort of weird annoyance of the fact that he’s experiencing the effects of free speech.
I can post as many times as I want jus as anyone here does. George and even you post as much as I do. Quit being a whiny baby. You’re clearly upset that there is someone else who points out a countervailing view and that is the entire point of this blog. It’s strange that you still can’t seem to grasp that rather simple concept. BTW thanks for reading my posts. I know you read them all the time since you love to keep track of them and comment on it when you whine.