• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fed-backed censorship machine targeted 20 news sites

Its only funny if you have no respect for democracy and prefer a Putin type system.
If all these outlets are being "censored" why the **** are they still out here spewing all kinds of unfettered bullshit?

Why do the ones who constantly claim they are being silenced also the ones who never shut the **** up?
 
So no links, right? Maybe it’s actually the fee exchange of garbage on your part.
My garbage is the stuff that results in freedom, security and prosperity. Nobody wants to live under your liberal mandates.
 

Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Epoch Times and Breitbart were identified among the "most prominent domains" whose election coverage was cited in tweets flagged by the Election Integrity Partnership and its collaborators.​


View attachment 67415955


We're in the middle of what I would call the Great Suppression. This is a fascist regime aiming to criminalize political dissent.
No, we're in the middle of what I would call the Great Revulsion... :sick:

This is an authoritarian Political Party that believes Mao's Little Red Book and worships the worst president in modern times. In their twisted world of alternate facts, they feel lying, defaming, attacking our most cherished tradition- the peaceful transfer of power... :cautious:

The only folks who believe this crap are drinkers of tRump kool-aid... ✌️
 
My garbage is the stuff that results in freedom, security and prosperity. Nobody wants to live under your liberal mandates.
LMAO, no MAGA perhaps. MAGAs sure wanted to live under Rabid Right Mandates... :cautious:

As far as 'nobody' goes, seems that twice more Americans voted to reject tRumpism than wanting it... :unsure:

So perhaps you could get a job at one of the 'targeted' so-called news sources... ✌️
 
If all these outlets are being "censored" why the **** are they still out here spewing all kinds of unfettered bullshit?

Why do the ones who constantly claim they are being silenced also the ones who never shut the **** up?
Drama queens lol. Its like these people think anything less than 4chan is big brother lol.
 
Its only funny if you have no respect for democracy and prefer a Putin type system.
😂 sorry not everything can be 4chan mah dude.
 

Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Epoch Times and Breitbart were identified among the "most prominent domains" whose election coverage was cited in tweets flagged by the Election Integrity Partnership and its collaborators.​



Well, let's see...

Just the News, Epoch Times, and Breitbart are straight propoganda. NYP is a shock rag. And Fox News? Largely propaganda if not almost entirely so on TV, and more closer to the line between intentional misdirection and propaganda on the website.

As to Fox, this is why we regularly see certain posters making threads that echo just the title Fox News gives an article, but when one reads the article one typically finds a sentence or three that completely contradict - as in obliterate - the title's premise. Those are usually buried at the end. The riled won't reach it because they've already popped to the comments section or some other site to rage about how poopy the libturds are.



extra credit: doesn't basionok post a lot of pro-Russia propaganda? Or am I confusing his posts with someone else's? It'd make sense for someone who posts that kind of propaganda to try to boost heavy RW BS. Worked in 2016, after all. Failed in 2020, and look at what Biden and Europe are doing: what Trump never would have done.
 
LMAO, no MAGA perhaps. MAGAs sure wanted to live under Rabid Right Mandates... :cautious:

As far as 'nobody' goes, seems that twice more Americans voted to reject tRumpism than wanting it... :unsure:

So perhaps you could get a job at one of the 'targeted' so-called news sources... ✌️
Dude, if you're happy with the direction of this country, absolutely vote for Democrats because this is 100% their policies.
 

Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Epoch Times and Breitbart were identified among the "most prominent domains" whose election coverage was cited in tweets flagged by the Election Integrity Partnership and its collaborators.​


View attachment 67415955


We're in the middle of what I would call the Great Suppression. This is a fascist regime aiming to criminalize political dissent.
A list of political enemies of the federal government? What could possibly go wrong with this? (If you completely and utterly ignore history and refuse to learn from it).

Based on the responses from the left leaning posted here in this thread, they appear not to be concerned about issues and are only posted from the demands made of them of their leftist Blue Check Marked Twitter bubble, as if that's any sort of surprise.

Never mind that this obviously political speech censorship, the government having enlisted private companies to do their censorship bidding, makes those private companies 'State Actors' by default, and that those private companies are then under the same restrictions as the government, those violations carrying the same potential punitive penalties.

Oh, the so uninformed. They are humorous to watch them contort themselves defending this obvious affront to civil liberties, such as political free speech they don't agree with.
 
Dude, if you're happy with the direction of this country, absolutely vote for Democrats because this is 100% their policies.
I am very unhappy about the direction the MAGAs want to take this nation. That's why I vote for Democrats. Once upon a time I was very comfortable as a Republican...✌️
 
A list of political enemies of the federal government? <snipped for brevity>
There is no such list.

There is no Fed backed censorship machine.

The OP's linked ""article"" is pure garbage, I know, because I tested it.

So there is all of that.
 
So they were knowingly spreading lies.

Should they be able to tell kids Tide pods are good for them?

Why not? Q-parents are frying chicken in NyQuil because Elvis and JFK, Jr. love (present tense as QAnons are certain that Elvis and JFK are alive and in hiding) NyQuil fried chicken.
 
There is no such list.
Apparently the citation would disagree with you. But my position has been, for quite some time, to let some time pass before the other 1/2 of the story is revealed (usually on the back pages of the news - as the leftist news doesn't want to report it with the prominence it deserves).

There is no Fed backed censorship machine.

The OP's linked ""article"" is pure garbage, I know, because I tested it.
I'd be interested in learning more as to how you 'I tested it.'

So there is all of that.
 
Dude, if you're happy with the direction of this country, absolutely vote for Democrats because this is 100% their policies.

At least they don’t demand that the state take control of a woman the very moment that she becomes pregnant.
 
Apparently the citation would disagree with you.
The Citation is wrong.
I disagree with it because the facts are on my side.
But my position has been, for quite some time, to let some time pass before the other 1/2 of the story is revealed (usually on the back pages of the news - as the leftist news doesn't want to report it with the prominence it deserves).
The "other half of the story" is already and has long been revealed. I know, having mentioned this previously, I read and took the OP's ""article"" tore it apart and tested it against facts from a myriad of sources and found the OP's ""article"" to be, essentially, sensationalized garbage ""reporting"".
I'd be interested in learning more as to how you 'I tested it.'
Simple. You take what JTN's writers wrote in the OP's article, the claims and the rhetoric all the bits and pieces and you do background on them from a host of other media outlets, first person sources, available records etc.. You winnow the wheat from the chaff, as it were, and that is what I did. Mind you the OP's linked ""article"" would seem wholly legitimate to someone who is uninterested in going into what was said there, but I am not that sort of person. I could read the piece to its end and see the red flags in the piece that made me go, "Hmmm?" So I went in search to verify the OP's linked ""article"" for veracity, it failed the test.

Believe me I learned a lot on my quest. Sadly for the OP I also learned that the OMG of their Thread was needless as the JTN piece was flat out garbage.
 
I'd be interested in learning more as to how you 'I tested it.'
Below is a partial list of Links I visited, other articles I read, backgrounding on the OP's topic, data I checked etc.. I did not save every source I went to and visited. But I did due diligence before I made my statement that "I tested it."

So there is that.
























 
The Citation is wrong.
I disagree with it because the facts are on my side.
Yes, I would assume that you'd take the left's spin as fact. Doesn't make them facts.

The "other half of the story" is already and has long been revealed. I know, having mentioned this previously, I read and took the OP's ""article"" tore it apart and tested it against facts from a myriad of sources and found the OP's ""article"" to be, essentially, sensationalized garbage ""reporting"".
Please point to where you 'tore it apart'. Perhaps you can point out non-left sources which support your take on it. Do keep in this that this is the same administration which tried to foist a 'disinformation' board' with federal powers, which since has moved to DHS for silent implementation (see my post below).

Simple. You take what JTN's writers wrote in the OP's article, the claims and the rhetoric all the bits and pieces and you do background on them from a host of other media outlets, first person sources, available records etc.. You winnow the wheat from the chaff, as it were, and that is what I did. Mind you the OP's linked ""article"" would seem wholly legitimate to someone who is uninterested in going into what was said there, but I am not that sort of person. I could read the piece to its end and see the red flags in the piece that made me go, "Hmmm?" So I went in search to verify the OP's linked ""article"" for veracity, it failed the test.
This 'winnow the wheat from the chaff' sure sounds like cherry picking the points you want to believe, rather than the truth.

Has the big tech suppression of the Hunter Laptop Story not brought anything to light for you? That 'Big Tech' regularly censors speech they politically 'don't like'?
What of all the social media posts of credentialed people with differing view points on mandatory COVID vaccinations, the COVID vaccine, and the mere discussion of possible alternative treatments?
All that simply pass you by unnoticed by you?

Believe me I learned a lot on my quest. Sadly for the OP I also learned that the OMG of their Thread was needless as the JTN piece was flat out garbage.
Meh. Rather unsurprising that you'd call the conservative perspective that, and hold the liberal perspective the unquestioned gold source, but what do you expect when you view the world through liberal Kantian 'Rose Colored Glasses'?

Me? I'm rather skeptical by nature.

My first instinct is to ask 'What's in it for you?' (follow the money), once that's figured out, pretty much everything else easily falls into place.

In the COVID example, all you have to take a look at is where the money is flowing (big pharma and ill-conceived and unwise gain of function research) with Fauci pocketing some millions in the process, but only after sharing it with one of which buddies.
 
Below is a partial list of Links I visited, other articles I read, backgrounding on the OP's topic, data I checked etc.. I did not save every source I went to and visited. But I did due diligence before I made my statement that "I tested it."

So there is that.
(snipped due to posting length limitations)

Seems you likely have been taken in as so many other have.

. . . .​
This same strategic motive — to vest accusations of “disinformation” with the veneer of expertise — is what has fostered a new, very well-financed industry heralding itself as composed of “anti-disinformation" scholars. Knowing that Americans are inculcated from childhood to believe that censorship is nefarious — that it is the hallmark of tyranny — those who wish to censor need to find some ennobling rationale to justify it and disguise what it is.​
They have thus created a litany of neutral-sounding groups with benign names — The Atlantic Council, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, various "fact-checking” outfits controlled by corporate media outlets — that claim to employ “anti-disinformation experts” to identify and combat fake news. Just as media corporations re-branded their partisan pundits as "fact-checkers" -- to masquerade their opinions as elevated, apolitical authoritative, decrees of expertise -- the term "disinformation expert" is designed to disguise ideological views on behalf of state and corporate power centers as Official Truth.​
Yet when one subjects these groups to even minimal investigative scrutiny, one finds that they are anything but apolitical and neutral. They are often funded by the same small handful of liberal billionaires (such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar), actual security state agencies of the U.S., the UK or the EU, and/or Big Tech monopolies such as Google and Facebook.​
Indeed, the concept of “anti-disinformation expert” is itself completely fraudulent. This is not a real expertise but rather a concocted title bestowed on propagandists to make them appear more scholarly and apolitical than they are. But the function of this well-funded industry is the same as the one served by the pre-election letter from “dozens of former intelligence officials": to discredit dissent and justify its censorship by infusing its condemnation with the pretense of institutional authority. The targeted views are not merely wrong; they have been adjudged by official, credentialed experts to constitute "disinformation.”​

You've listed nothing more than a long list of “anti-disinformation experts” with a leftist / liberal political leaning, which, rather unsurprisingly, are being paid all from the same sources.

The bottom line is that there was probably some political arm twisting from the left and the corrupt DC bureaucratic swamp to 'encourage' Big Tech to do their censorship bidding. We already know there was such arm twisting from the federal Democrats.
 
Below is a partial list of Links I visited, other articles I read, backgrounding on the OP's topic, data I checked etc.. I did not save every source I went to and visited. But I did due diligence before I made my statement that "I tested it."

So there is that.

























OMG ! A loooonnnnng, links rich, post. I guess one such aberrant post is okay. Just don't make a habit of it!
Our scrolling time is precious, we all have lives to live and unsupported, brief, "drive bys" are greatly preferred.
 
Back
Top Bottom