When Truth Is Censored
Fact-checkers aka social media censorship groups have been around on social media for a while now. Many of us are not thrilled to have been graced with these select groups of know-it-alls, these special “chosen ones” who have been set above all others as the purveyors of truth and justice for all of mankind (or is that now people-kind?).
Their opinions, biases, whims, political opinions, conceptions and misconceptions now wear the diamond tierras of righteousness. All the while your opinions, biases, whims, conceptions and misconceptions are deemed baseless unless they coincide with those of our blessed fact-checkers.
It started with the thumbs-up and thumbs-down icons (smiley faces and angry faces, too) usually conveniently located under or above our posts to allow others their quick-click judgment of our opinions, gracing us with their favor or disfavor depending upon how pleasing or displeasing others find our posts.
In other words: before we had hardcore fact-checkers, we self-regulated ourselves to some extent, with society shaming those who failed to play by the accepted rules, and lauding those who posted the frilly, happy, puppy-dog photos. So, this started with group censorship and has blossomed into full-blown authoritative restriction.
It’s become, well, a dictatorship, where if you don’t play the way they want you to play, you don’t get to play at all.
We now have fact-checkers left to determine what we believe, real or fake.
Let that sink in for a moment.
It’s not bad enough that our news media have gone rogue so they can play into the whims of their advertisers and political allies. Now, social media is doing it, too.
This begs the questions: What are their qualifications? What magical charm allows these fact-checker to sort fact from fiction? How exactly is this accomplished when much of the news we see today—and for the last only G-d knows how many decades? Centuries?–is based on speculation and opinion?
Does this mean speculation and opinion are okay if your speculation and opinion coincide with that of the fact-checkers? Or is some other formula involved?
I rarely come across true journalism these days. It is seldom found on the TV or in print. Instead, we are flooded with biases and conjecture, controlled to some extent by the media advertisers, and all served up neatly in a gaslighted echo chamber of manipulative corporate and political delight.
Sounds like something out of some Aldos Huxley sci-fi story, doesn’t it? Or perhaps a story by Ayn Rand, who long before her time wrote of today’s society, where the producers would be controlled/regulated by those who produce nothing…
Think about the phrase “independent fact-checkers” for a moment… if you will. The word “independent” might mislead us to believe these individuals are non-biased. However, in today’s politically polarized climate, can such a thing exist?
Is it possible to have non-biased fact-checkers? And if not, then are they truly fact-checkers at all, or just people pushing their own agenda on the rest of us?
Is it simply coincidence that these “fact”-checkers seem aligned with leftist ideologies? Where posting a quote from Hitler to show the dangers of socialism can get you banned, while memes pushing the destruction of Israel continue to float out there in the ether… unchallenged.
Have we changed one bit as a people, other than having improved technology, when Hitler’s evils are hidden and protected by today’s fact-checkers—the same people who allow hatred toward the Jewish State to persist?
Post about Hunter Biden’s laptop during the election cycle, and adults are suddenly admonished as if they were little children. The fact-checkers do not take your school recess away… just your FB accounts and Twitter feeds, as they proclaim your pariah status and erase you from this electronic society.
Flags are attached to our post, our accounts are temporarily or even permanently suspended (again, as if we were little children), wiping us from this electronic civilization as if we never existed. But only if you post something they disapprove of.
So what, exactly, do they approve of?
You know the answer to that. We all know the answer to that. We’ve all felt the pressure of that. We have been systematically conditioned for some time to know exactly what we are allowed and not allowed to say.
There is a name for this type of censorship. I’ll give you a hint. It was one of Benito Mussolini’s well-known tactics, one that today’s youth have attempted to reassign to have an exact opposite meaning:
Fascism.
When those in charge adhere to the beliefs of one political party, THEIR political party, allowing only one viewpoint – theirs – to be made public, they are using the playbook of Benito Mussolini – the Father of Fascism.
BUT…What happens when the “fact-checkers” repeatedly get it wrong? When they stifle important information, discussions? What happens when the vital data we need to make important life decisions is suppressed, erased? When they take it upon themselves to decide what information we should and should not be allowed to have in their attempts to form public opinions to mimick those of their own?
And, maybe, months later or even a year or more later, after having had our posts tagged, flagged, or our accounts suspended, it turns out the original post was correct? Later deemed to be true long after that important and possibly life-changing information is censored and denied?
Is there an apology? Does big tech/big brother reinstate our suspended accounts, remove the flags and fake fact-checking notes from our posts? Are these big tech companies legally responsible if they ban life-saving information that leads to the deaths of many, such as when they banned videos of licensed doctors discussing specific drugs that showed promise in combatting COVID-19? Or banned talk of how this virus might have originated?
What if these new vaccines, later down the road, turn out to have serious consequences? Should big tech companies who actively promote these vaccines, like Facebook and Twitter who post daily about how safe they are, be sued in court for promoting a lie while stifling and outright denying public discourse regarding the possible side effects? Should they then be held liable after censoring posts made by people who directly suffered these side-effects, while these big-tech companies repeatedly informed us and pushed us to get the vaccine? What happens when groups created to discuss such vaccine side-effects are shut down by big tech without so much as an explanation? It’s happened. Recently.
What happens when they ban or admonish users for posting about Hunter Biden’s laptop, falling in line with the liberal mainstream news media to ensure we, the people, are left ignorant of such things?
What happens when their fact-checkers need fact-checkers, but their notifications explaining your account is now limited leave you with no way to show the facts are on your side?
If you have been subjected to such an action, then you know there is no room for discussion when it comes to big tech and their biased fact-checkers. You get to check a box that says you disagree with their decision. That’s it. There is no place to lodge a complaint with any semblance of explanation in defense of your position. No way to attach links of your verified proof.
Their word is final…until the truth comes out. IF it comes out.
So what price does big tech pay when the truth does come out, the truth THEY censored? And their censorship has resulted in an uniformed people falling for and suffering from a lie they pushed?
These same fact-checkers allowed the Russia Collusion Hoax to go on for months on end. Where were they when these lies were being spread about our president? There was no proof of such collusion because it never happened. But such posts were allowed.
The logical conclusion is that big tech doesn’t care when such fake news is posted, as long as that fake news harms conservatives.
RELATED:
And yet, dare to post truthfully about Hunter Biden’s laptop during the election cycle, and you get the equivalent to an electronic slap to the face. I saw meme after meme, post after post with lies about President Trump—all going unchallenged by these so-called fact-checkers during that same election cycle. But Hunter Biden was off limits. Just as President Biden is off limits to any unvetted questioning by the press. The proof is out there, and big tech STILL censors it, while the mainstream media ignores it, and plays along to make cooing kissy-faces at the current administration.
What do you call it when they quickly censor negative yet truthful content regarding one party, while ignoring negative content that has been proven to be lies about the other party? Yes, there’s that word again: Fascism.
You can post all you want about how safe the vaccine is (regardless of whether it proves to be safe a year from now or has caused some serious adverse effects to a large number of our population by then). But dare to suggest perhaps Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine might be beneficial for COVID-19, and your post gets tagged. . . DESPITE having article after article from legitimate and licensed doctors and other medical sources touting their own positive results with those drugs.
Conclusion:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx
So, what recourse do we have when their fact-checkers need fact-checkers? Apparently, none. And that, my friends, is how fascism took hold in America.
About Author
