We have been discussing media rating systems being used to target advertisers and revenue sources for certain cites and companies. NewsGuard and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) have been criticized as the most sophisticated components of a modern blacklisting system targeting conservative or dissenting voices. I recently had a series of exchanges with NewsGuard after a critical column. Now, the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is moving forward in demanding documents and records from leading companies utilizing the GARM system, a company that I have previously criticized. It is a welcomed effort for anyone who is concerned over the use of these blacklisting systems to curtail free speech. However, time is of the essence.
The demand to preserve evidence went to various companies, including Adidas, American Express, Bayer, BP, Carhartt, Chanel, CVS and General Motors.
In my new book, I discuss the rating systems as a new and insidious form of blacklisting. Notably, Elon Musk has now filed a lawsuit against GARM and may be able to get more evidence out in discovery on the operations of this outfit.
It is an effort to strangle the financial life out of sites by targeting their donors and advertisers. This is where the left has excelled beyond anything that has come before in speech crackdowns.
Years ago, I wrote about the Biden administration supporting efforts like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) to discourage advertisers from supporting certain sites. All of the 10 riskiest sites targeted by the index were popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. That included Reason.org and a group of libertarian and conservative law professors who simply write about cases and legal controversies. GDI warned advertisers against “financially supporting disinformation online.” At the same time, HuffPost, a far-left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.
Once GDI’s work and bias was disclosed, government officials quickly disavowed the funding. It was a familiar pattern. Within a few years, we found that the work had been shifted instead to groups like the GARM, which is the same thing on steroids. It is the creation of a powerful and largely unknown group called the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), which has huge sway over the advertising industry and was quickly used by liberal activists to silence opposing views and sites by cutting off their revenue streams.
Notably, Rob Rakowitz, head of GARM, pushed GDI and embraced its work. In an email to GARM members obtained by the committee last month, Rakowitz wrote that he wanted to “ensure you’re working with an inclusion and exclusion list that is informed by trusted partners such as NewsGuard and GDI — both partners to GARM and many of our members.”
GARM is being used by WFA to achieve what GDI failed to accomplish. The WFA site refers to Rakowitz as “a career change agent” who will “remove harmful content from ad-supported digital media.”
Rakowitz’s views on free speech are chilling and his work shows how these systems can be used to conceal bias in targeting the revenue of sites with opposing views.
Rakowitz has denounced the “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” and how civil libertarians cite “‘principles for governance’ and applying them as literal law from 230 years ago (made by white men exclusively).”
He appears to be referring to free speech. If so, it is deeply troubling. Some of us believe that free speech is a human right, not just an American right. Those “white men” include philosophers from the Enlightenment whose ideas were incorporated in the Framer’s view of inalienable rights like free speech.
The threat against free speech today is being led by private groups seeking to exercise an unprecedented level of control over what people can read and discuss.
Pundits and politicians, including President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, have justified their calls for censorship (or “content moderation” for polite company) by stressing that the First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies. That distinction allows Obama to declare himself to be “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He did not call himself a “free speech absolutist” because he favors censorship for views that he considers to be “lies,” “disinformation,” or “quackery.”
The distinction has always been a disingenuous evasion. The First Amendment is not the sole or exclusive definition of free speech. Censorship on social media is equally, if not more, damaging for free speech. Those who value free speech should oppose blacklisting systems, as was the case during the McCarthy period. Now that conservatives and libertarians are being blacklisted, it is suddenly less troubling for many on the left.
Rakowitz now wields massive influence over public discourse in this collaboration with corporations and groups like GDI. As was done to the left during the McCarthy period, blacklisting systems are now being used to control public access to information by choking off the revenue of sites.
The current anti-free speech movement is the most dangerous in history due precisely to this sophistication and the unprecedented alliance of corporate, media, academic, and government interests.
GARM and other media rating systems have been embraced by many who would prefer to silence opposing voices than respond to them. Rakowitz was wildly popular at Davos in calling for a “safer” Internet that would target dangerous sites much like GDI: “GARM has been officially recognized as a key project for 2020 within the WEF’s platform on Shaping the Future of Media Entertainment and Culture.”
The House committees are pushing forward with a sense of urgency. It is clear that the investigations in government-supported censorship and these blacklisting operations will end if the Democrats retake the house. It is expected that these companies will seek to delay any disclosures in the hope that the House will change hands and this system will again be allowed to recede back into the darkness.
It is blacklisting. Period. There has never been a more important time to do your own research. Elon Musk, heaven help us, saved us by buying Twitter. We would be lost in a sea of propaganda had he not.
PS – it’s also pretty clear: stop voting for dems, for anything. Vote for the independent or libertarian if you hate the RNC, but do not, under any circumstances, vote for what is now the dem regime ever again. Do it in numbers they cannot refute.
Happy Hiroshima Day, everybody!
To quote from: “Visual Explanations Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative” Edward R. Tufte. —— I present this only to illustrate how the left is painting a PRETTY PICTURE to assuage the gullible voter.
_____ “Enthusiasts, partisans, and liars have long tinkered with graphical evidence by dequantifying image, selecting and hyping advantageous visual effects, distorting data. Recently, inexpressive computing and ingenious techniques for image processing have provided endless new opportunities for mischief. Arbitrary, transient, one-sided, fractured, undocumented materials have become the great predicament of image making and processing. How are we to access the integrity of visual evidence? What ethical standards are to be observed in the production of such images? One way to enforce some standard of truth-telling is to insist that the innocent, unprocessed, natural image be shown along with the manipulated image, and, further, that the manipulators and their methods be identified. If images are to be credible, their source and history must be documented. And, if an image is to serve as serious evidence, a more rigorous accounting should reveal the overall pool of images from which the displayed image was selected. ———- Finally, despite the chronic dangers of misrepresentation, appropriate re-expressions or transforms of scale are among the most powerful strategies for exploring data.” ——–
God help us all if a babbling deva (prima donna) becomes our leader!
We can disparage these efforts all we want but we should recognize that there is at the core a real need – that is some sense that a media site or organization is providing useful, insightful, reliable information. (There are government and industry actors that may not want reliable information out there.) An imperfect analogy would be financial investments such as mutual funds – there is usually available a 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year return on investment analysis compared with some market index (e.g. S&P500) with the normal cautionary note that past performance is not a prediction of future performance.
Could not a media site or organization be judged by past postings for accuracy in reporting and commentary on key events such as election outcomes, economic metrics, disease origins and therapeutic effectiveness (e.g. COVID-19), scandals (e.g. Hunter’s laptop, Russia gate), key domestic issues (e.g. crime rates and effective reform, immigration, abortion)? There are so many commentators out there that probably have an awful track record for being correct and I (and perhaps others as well) have very short memories. I suspect that even the most miserably wrong-headed commentator is right sometimes and will proudly tout their one success out of hundreds of wrong predictions.
To give a specific example, when the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says that inflation will be “transitory” is there a track record of her predictions to bolster or discount that statement or are we simply to rely on authority? I for one would appreciate an objective place to go that has some record of her past predictions packaged in a way that lets me know if her prediction has credibility.
Cannot there be multiple, competing information evaluation sites that would help institutionalize the free market of ideas? Another financial analogy would be the various rating companies – while not perfect these have provided a needed service. In the information realm, these evaluation companies would compete with each other but would have the rest of the internet to provide the ultimate check. These evaluation companies would have their own reputation and market to protect and would not want to miss out on the next big idea or find themselves out as distrusted. Not all sites or organizations need to be evaluated. There still is plenty of room for blogs to be unevaluated unless self desired.
No. What the hell is wrong with you?
Rob “Goebbels” Rakowitz, a jew.
Wow what a big surprise, another subversive jew as the top anti American criminal.
Just like Gentiles, some Jews are leftists, some are conservative or right wing (think of Ben Shapiro or Dennis Prager). Many prominent Jewish businessmen have endorsed Trump this year (e.g., Bill Ackman and David Sacks who organized a major Silicon Valley fundraiser for Trump).
Freedoms and liberties emanating from God would be diminished and extinguished if independent viewpoints were not perpetually fluid. Thank you Jonathan Turley. And, thank you for presenting another source, such as Reason.org, that provides individuals embracing critical thinking to build upon alternate sources of news and information.
Professor Turley writes all these impassioned posts about free speech and he keeps voting for 1984 (Orwell not Reagan). Put your money where your mouth is, professor.
If the House wants to investigate something useful in the cause of democracy, why doesn’t it look into the $10 million (in cash, in small bills, in 2 bags) moving from Egypt to Trump’s campaign? Why not call Bill Barr on the carpet and demand that he explain why he killed the investigation? Egypt is known to have bribed other public officials. Why hasn’t Turley written about that? Oh, wait, I forgot–he is a pal of Barr.
Just as histrionic as her usual screeds, but with far fewer words. Progress!
Gigi,
Does the 12th Amendment prohibit the Pres and VP from being from the same state?
Or…how much of that $6B that went to Urkaine “accidentally” went back to biden/dnc?
“If the House wants to investigate something useful in the cause of democracy, why doesn’t it look into the $10 million (in cash, in small bills, in 2 bags) moving from Egypt to Trump’s campaign? “
Mueller investigated it in 2016 but failed to find anything. It was reinvestigated in 2020. It is now 2024, election time, so you can bring it up again. If Trump were involved in an election in 2028, you would bring it up again. This is the type of sh!t Gigi brings to the table.
Dishonest and ignorant are two of the many names to describe Gigi. She is a waste of time.
S. Meyer: where’s the proof that Mueller investigated this? I can’t find any, but “Democracy Now” says:
“According to new reporting by The Washington Post, the Egyptian government attempted to funnel $10 million in cash to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, leading to a previously undisclosed Department of Justice investigation into the transaction. The investigation went nowhere, with Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr ordering it closed due to “a lack of sufficient evidence.” Meanwhile, Trump approved millions of dollars of military aid to the government of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has been in power since 2013. Carol Leonnig, the reporter who broke the story at The Washington Post, explains that the money, if it did reach the at-the-time “cash-starved” Trump campaign, will have amounted to bribery. However, notes Leonnig, the window for prosecuting anyone involved in the transaction has largely passed following the aborted investigation.”
Before you go calling anyone “dishonest and ignorant”–PROVIDE A CITE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS OR STFU.
@Gigi: Where is the proof that anything written above is true? Why don’t we see any paperwork like we saw with Joe Biden that you said didn’t exist? Why don’t we see computer records like those of Hunter Biden that you called Russian disinformation.
“Meanwhile, Trump approved millions of dollars of military aid to the government of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, “
America provides foreign aid. I am not happy with this if it is true, but what about the Billions, not Millions, that Biden sent to Iran, destabilizing the Middle East and providing money for nuclear weapons and terrorism?
It’s concerning that you seem to only see what you wish to see, even if it isn’t there. What’s wrong with your brain that you’re unable to acknowledge the full picture?
Read the Washington Post article referenced in the cite I provided that details the documents and sources upon which they were reporting.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t cited any source for what you are claiming are facts. Is that because you just made it up? And why do all of your responses to my posts include personal attacks? I cite my sources— if you disagree, then cite your own sources, but you don’t do that—you attack me instead.
“Read the Washington Post article referenced in the cite I provided that details the documents and sources upon which they were reporting.”
@ Gigi: If you read the article, you can provide the documents and where they came from. Generally, what we hear is anecdotal information from janitorial services. Let’s hear what you have this time. If you can’t produce it, don’t worry. We are used to your non-answers that you think are on target. I await your reply. You made the claim. Prove it.
“And why do all of your responses to my posts include personal attacks? I cite my sources”
Why are your responses personal to MAGA supporters, Trump and everyone else? When you attack what I am, a MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN person, you are attacking me. When you lie in the face of the truth, you are insulting all. When you cite proof that is an opinion as fact, again, you are insulting the intelligence of others. This is a chronic problem for you, so you don’t deserve to be treated with respect, and I wish others would argue with you in the same disrespectful manner.
Take note: You didn’t and never respond to the comments that show your arguments’ stupidity. You never do.
You claimed that the $10million cash transfer was repeatedly investigated and rejected as invalid. WHAT do you base this claim on? Your response, as usual, is nothing more than an attack on me, demand for sources and the usual claim that I lie. I told you that I was quoting a piece from the Washington Post that lists the sources they relied on. What do you base your claim on? You don’t say.—we both know that no matter what Carol Leonnig says about her sources, you’ll call her a liar too. She is a Pulitzer Prize winner, BTW. I suppose that doesn’t matter in MAGA land.
This is classic MAGA— call anyone who says something you don’t like or can’t refute a liar. Just like Trump you throw out “facts” that have no basis in reality—e.g.—“Mexico will pay to build the wall”. What is your explanation for this lie? He made this promise dozens of times at rallies all over America— it always was nothing but bluster and bloviating-typical Trump braggadocio. Why don’t you MAGAs hold him to account? Is it OK to lie like this to get people to vote for you? This is just one example of Trump’s lies.
If you disagree with sources I cite then confront me with a reliable source of contrary information—calling me a liar is not responsive. Throwing out facts that have no basis in reality is not responsive either.
@ Gigi: As usual, you can’t find proof for what you say. This is your story on this blog: lots of rhetoric, no facts, lots of mistruths, and lots of lies. You can’t quote the facts that make Trump or his campaign guilty. Do you know what facts are? How you handle yourself on the blog doesn’t make you sound intelligent.
“What do you base your claim on?”
There were two investigations in which nothing could be found. The first was the Mueller investigation, which was so desirous of pinning something on Trump that it lied about Russia. It would have charged Trump if it had found the slightest proof. Following that investigation, others followed up on loose ends and found zero.
” She is a Pulitzer Prize winner,”
Walter Duranty lied, and so did Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project. If you don’t want to sound stupid, show proof and stop with the stupidity.
“Mexico will pay to build the wall.” What is your explanation for this lie?”
Again, you sound stupid as you try to deflect. In essence, Mexico did pay for the wall with soldiers, which cost Mexico money. Illegal immigration fell to a low and was dropping fast. Then Biden came in and opened the border to terrorists, the drug cartels, yearly Fentynal deaths that exceeded the deaths from the Vietnam War, child abuse, slavery and prostitution.
Show your proof, or shut up. A big mouth is not a good substitute for intelligence.
It is amazing that you MAGAs accuse people who criticize Trump as having a “derangement syndrome”, which it is obvious to any ratonal person that Trump devotees are the ones who are delusional. Mexico didn’t “pay” for anything. Mexico didn’t “build” any wall. Trump just dreams up things he thinks people want to hear and says them–and, if anyone dares to hold him to account for what he says, he attacks them. You do the same. “Mexico will pay to build the wall” was nothing but Trump braggadocio. Here is an excerpt from her piece, published in the Washington Post:
“Five days before Donald Trump became president in January 2017, a manager at a bank branch in Cairo received an unusual letter from an organization linked to the Egyptian intelligence service. It asked the bank to “kindly withdraw” nearly $10 million from the organization’s account — all in cash.
Inside the state-run National Bank of Egypt, employees were soon busy placing bundles of $100 bills into two large bags, according to records from the bank. Four men arrived and carried away the bags, which U.S. officials later described in sealed court filings as weighing a combined 200 pounds and containing what was then a sizable share of Egypt’s reserve of U.S. currency.
Federal investigators learned of the withdrawal, which has not been previously reported, early in 2019. The discovery intensified a secret criminal investigation that had begun two years earlier with classified U.S. intelligence indicating that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi sought to give Trump $10 million to boost his 2016 presidential campaign, a Washington Post investigation has found.
Since receiving the intelligence about Sisi, the Justice Department had been examining whether money moved from Cairo to Trump, potentially violating federal law that bans U.S. candidates from taking foreign funds. Investigators had also sought to learn if money from Sisi might have factored into Trump’s decision in the final days of his run for the White House to inject his campaign with $10 million of his own money.
Those questions, at least in the view of several investigators on the case, would never be answered, The Post found.
Within months of learning of the withdrawal, prosecutors and FBI agents were blocked by top Justice Department officials from obtaining bank records they believed might hold critical evidence, according to interviews with people familiar with the case as well as documents and contemporaneous notes of the investigation. The case ground to a halt by the fall of 2019 as Trump’s then-attorney general, William P. Barr, raised doubts about whether there was sufficient evidence to continue the probe of Trump.”
Ms. Leonnig interviewed “people familiar with the case as well as documents and contemporaneous notes of the investigation”. NOW, what do you base your claim that the matter was subsequently re-investigated and found to be without merit?
“It is amazing that you MAGAs accuse people who criticize Trump as having a “derangement syndrome”
@ Gigi: Stop being stupid. I criticized Trump many times.
” Mexico didn’t “pay” for anything. Mexico didn’t “build” any wall. ”
You lack the ability to understand metaphors. You will read Jonathan Swift literally and stupidly believe the Giants existed.
Trump forced Mexico to do many things, including placing their army at the border and remaining in Mexico. This imposed a cost on Mexico, though it wasn’t dollar for dollar. (If Mexico paid for the wall in pesos, you would say it wasn’t dollar for dollar.)
Your ignorance permits you to take Trump only literally, while others more intelligent can understand what intelligent people recognize him to be saying. That is a problem when talking to the very young, but though you haven’t, you should have passed that stage.
“Five days before Donald Trump became president in January 2017, a manager at a bank branch in Cairo received an unusual letter from an organization linked to the Egyptian intelligence service. It asked the bank to “kindly withdraw” nearly $10 million from the organization’s account — all in cash.”
That was investigated, but no connection to Trump or his campaign was found. Your type of logic represents the illogical part of TDS. It is hard for me to believe you are that stupid.
” with classified U.S. intelligence indicating that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi sought to give Trump $10 million to boost his 2016 presidential campaign, a Washington Post investigation has found.”
Where is the proof? Despite their evidence, the Washington Post needed to be corrected with almost everything Trump did. This is more of the same. Why, if they were proven wrong many times before, would you believe them now? Are you illogical?
“Those questions, at least in the view of several investigators on the case, would never be answered, The Post found.”
They cannot be answered because the premise wasn’t true.
Gigi continues to argue that news outlets are “sources”. Even while discounting anything from a news outlet not of her choosing.
Gigi—-NEWS OUTLETS ARE NOT SOURCES.
Fox, News Max, OAN, Breitbart, InfoWars, News Nation, MAGA outlets, are NOT “news outlets”. They are not even journalists. They have never been, and never will be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. They are MAGA media.
Response to S. Meyer: you STILL haven’t cited any sources for your claim that Mueller investigated the $10 million payout from Egypt or that others also investigated it and found it non-meritorious. Trump’s claim that “Mexico will pay to build the wall” was NOT metaphor–he meant it literally, and his fans believed it. Now, if he said “one way or another, we’ll force Mexico to pay the cost to build the war”, that would be different. BUT, that’s not what he said, and you know it. Claiming that “more intelligent” people know he was speaking metaphorically is typical MAGA indoctrination–Trump gets caught lying, so he was kidding or speaking metaphorically, and anyone who doesn’t understand this is stupid. Yeah. Right. You KNOW Trump was lying about this to reel in the gullibles who think he is some kind of he-man ass-kicker. He’s anything but.
Leonnig did not list names of people with whom she spoke, and everyone knows why–because MAGAs would go after them, they’d have to have security round the clock and their families would be doxxed.
“Response to S. Meyer: you STILL haven’t cited any sources for your claim that Mueller investigated the $10 million payout from Egypt or that others also investigated it and found it non-meritorious.”
@ Gigi: You are looking for someone to prove a negative. That shows you have zero understanding of logic. Mueller investigated and found nothing; otherwise, we would have heard more. Are you trying to say that Mueller hid what he saw? How stupid!
“was NOT metaphor–he meant it literally,”
Trump meant it literally to you, but he did not mean that for modestly intelligent people. You don’t have to double down on your stupidity.
“Trump gets caught lying, so he was kidding or speaking metaphorically, and anyone who doesn’t understand this is stupid. ”
Trump says some things that are not satisfactorily accurate but are generally inconsequential. Your rhetoric proves Trump completed his essential task, which was to control illegal immigration. You know this is true, so you resort to your runaway stupidity.
“Leonnig did not list names of people with whom she spoke, and everyone knows why–because MAGAs would go after them, they’d have to have security round the clock and their families would be doxxed.”
She didn’t have trustworthy names with primary access to this specific information. It is the left that is most at fault for doxing and censorship. You guys even threaten the lives of Presidents and Supreme Court Justices. That doesn’t concern you because you live in a deep, dark hole, afraid of any light that might come in.
Pulitzer prize LMAO. Cant you be serious for 2 seconds?
MEDIA are not sources. Pulitzer or no, MEDIA is not a source. They have sources.
There are sources available to you. You refuse to use them. You cite media as sources. MEDIA are not sources.
You wait for Vox or Maddow to give you your opinion. Thats pathetic. You’ve NEVER once seen me cite a “NEWS” article. NEVER. I use a real source or I save my opinion for when the facts are known.
You used your misread of Turley’s article as your “source” for 12A. I used the Constitution. I was right and you were wrong.
You used an NBC report as your “source” for Texas electricity production. I used the Texas public utilities website. I was right and you were wrong.
You used the “factcheck.org” for your source for what the inflation rate was when Trump left office (and misread it). I used the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. I was right and you were wrong.
You used Rachel Maddow for your source for the DCNG chain of command. I used their website. I was right and you were wrong.
And several more.
You believe anything you are told by your preferred “MEDIA”, and claim Maga are brainwashed LOL.
The CIA has admitted to planting false info with journalists. Were you aware of that? And do you think that is the extent of it?
Some media are lazy and incompetent, others are outright liars. You don’t care to determine which because you like their narrative, so you run with it.
Nevertheless, you will never hold the high ground in any debate here, so long as your only “source” is some “Pulitzer Prize” winning LIAR.
Anybody know what an “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” means? And why it’s bad?
Yes, I know it means.
And…?
It’s nothing but a pile of foul bovine excrement designed to inflame emotion, while providing absolutely no parseable information. The left and the neocon political advocates seem to specialize in such subterfuge, but the leftists seem truly to have a native talent for it.
See also:
Censorship Industry: GARM Members Receive Billions in Federal Contracts
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/censorship-industry-garm-members-receive-billions-in-federal-contracts/
“The federal government is sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to four of the big six global advertising agencies, which include some of the leading architects of online censorship.
These multinational corporations have spent much of the last decade demanding online censorship of ‘hate speech,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘harmful content’ on social media platforms, all while being paid by U.S. taxpayers, who overwhelmingly support free speech.”
If Kamala is elected, the only inalienable right will be to abortion.
If we are moving to a Chinese-style totalitarian state, then soon the issue will not be whether a woman can get an abortion, but whether she can refuse an abortion when the government demands that she have one. China, under Mao, is where we are headed. The madness of the Red Guards will be loosed upon us.
It seems fitting that Harris met Walz at an abortion clinic. Two deep blue state politicians who are all about the culture of death, and the death of civilization. For his part, Walz made a unique contribution to the death culture with his role in the George Floyd riots.
Yes, old man
It’s been planned when sperm banks cropped under some thin disguise of someone might need a donor? Seriously? After all humans are dead the monsters can still have access to gametes. It’s sci fi. Wonder how many ovaries have been collected.
The net Jesus christ spoke of as fishers of men. The net is the internet. It’s amazing.
At a minimum the Blacklisting companies should be required to inform those that have been blacklisted that they have been blacklisted.
This forces it out into the light of day per a sunshine provision protection and starts the process of defanging these vampires.
The Blacklisting industry might also be required to inform those on the blacklist as to the reason behind the blacklisting.
Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9 is all that comes to mind when thinking about Rakowitz, Crovitz and their global cult.
Here’s an older gentleman in the UK being arrested and taken to jail based on some “comments” he made on Facebook. Apparently those comments were not approved by the government.
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1820466209533342044
Couldn’t a successful claim of tortious interference be brought against GRAM and NewsGaurd in a well chosen jurisdication?
Probably. A good sign you should never ever use any Google product or service.
This should be an election motto for Trump: “Me or the Police State.”
K. Harris would only double-down on this censorship regime.
edwardmahl,
This, and Tulsi Gabbard being enrolled in the Quiet Skies program.
That is what Democrats want, a police state where they are the police.
I’m really having a major issue with the use of the term “enrolled” to described what was done to Gabbard. Yes, I know it was used in the original reports from sources that are at least nominally opposed to authoritarianism. I am also aware that it might technically conform to several definitions of the word. Nevertheless, to me it has overtones that imply some benign, possibly voluntary, process, not a flagrant, abusive, imposition of power, and abrogation of basic rights, like what was done here. Were Japanese-Americans enrolled in US detention camps in WWII? Were Jews in Nazi Germany “enrolled” in death camps? Yes, those are extreme examples, but I am not convinced they are of a different category.
Upstate – I wonder if Kam Harris was involved in putting TG on the watch list.
The quote refers to free speech as a “privilege”, but let us not forget it is much more than that. It is an inalienable right one has by having been born human.
https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840×2160/7355663-Andrew-Doyle-Quote-Opposition-to-free-speech-never-goes-away-which.jpg
😂 yes, people never really think about it. The equipment is larynx and speech center in the brain. 😂. We think of only 5 senses. We were created with SPEECH. it’s beautiful.
For the past few weeks Gmail has labeled email alters about these messages from Jonathan as potential “spam”. As far as I can tell there’s no reason they should be categorized that way. Is Google also trying to suppress Jonathan?
But of course.