Tucker Carlson Outlines Big Tech’s Moves To Control Political Speech…

This is a discussion point CTH has outlined for quite a while; the new aspect is the scale and scope of Big Tech’s latest effort to silence voices they define as against their interests.

President Trump has taken notice of the issue and over the past 48 hours he has been drawing additional attention to the problem.  Things are going to get a lot worse, a lot worse, in the days and months ahead.


In the final analysis, the big picture is about authoritarian control. Currently the largest tech companies are leveraging their power and influence to remove dissenting voices from commonly used social media platforms. Back in 2015 there was a prescient discussion between Matt Drudge and Alex Jones where this exact scenario was outlined.

Unfortunately, federal political leadership is aligned with Big Tech’s goals and opinions. This is one of the issues where the UniParty becomes most visible. There is a history of similar common cause that might provide reference.

In 2010 when the Tea Party was targeted by President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, the DOJ and IRS worked together to create the target list of voices they deemed adverse to their political interests. Because the establishment republican party was also a target of the Tea Party, the GOP and DNC viewed the Tea Party political rebellion as a common enemy. In 2019 and 2020 the same dynamic exists.

Populists, ordinary freedom loving Americans, are considered an enemy of the statists; adverse to the interests of the institutionalists. As a result DC politicians have no motive to confront Big Tech and their goals to silence voices based on inherent political views.


This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, A New America, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, media bias, President Trump, propaganda, Tea Party, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to Tucker Carlson Outlines Big Tech’s Moves To Control Political Speech…

  1. Sandra-VA says:

    IF you are using Firefox then this is a known issue… they rolled out an update that crushed add-ons. You can fix by going to OPTIONS, Privacy & Security and clicking Allow Studies – they are using this as an emergency to rollout the fix. Restart your browser and your add-ons will work again after a few minutes.

    Once it is all working again, you can deactivate Allow Studies.


  2. stablesort says:

    This is a tough nut to crack. Why, for instance, can there be a DNC that supports only Democrats? Why aren’t Republicans clamoring for the use of the DNC mailing lists?

    The problem conservatives face is that most of them are apolitical and non-activist. They resist ‘signing-up’ for anything and resent having to do so. The liberals have no such problem, their voter base will sign-up for everything under the sun and will join every organization that that can spell its own name.

    Twitter is a for-profit version of the DNC and we conservatives are trying to tell them that because their tool is so powerful, they must let us conservatives use their platform. Twitter ought to be required to bake our cake.

    When the government steps in, we lose. We’re inviting the government to increase its scope and its power. Remember, Twitter is on the government’s side.


  3. TycheSD says:

    Believe this is the Alex Jones – Matt Drudge conversation referred to above. I thought it was interesting, though I’ve never been a fan of Alex Jones. He really screwed up on the Sandy Hook theory. If not for that, I think he’d be alright today.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The answer to bad speech or wrong facts is more speech, not banning.
      Be better to convince him he is wrong and then he will say it on his show.

      Haven’t you ever screwed up or been wrong a few times?

      What is that quote about:
      Those who don’t make mistakes, don’t make anything

      Liked by 2 people

      • De Oppresso Liber says:

        I tried making the same argument as Sharyl Atkission’s to GatewayPundit, but their sissy moderator was “offended” (pretty childishly, too) and she (I’m guessing….her verbiage was very effeminate) banned me anyway. Oh well, life goes on…



        • Q-sent-me says:

          You’re lucky to get a response! In my case, they just banned me with no notice. I was entering a comment with no swears, and it said “awaiting moderation”. So, I put on my debugging hat and tried to figure out what was wrong with it. After several shorter comments went through, but the whole thing kept being held, I got frustrated and sent off a “f___ you, GP” KNOWING it wouldn’t make it through their automated filter.

          Well, their manual filter took exception with my debugging attempt, and got rid of my account. Yeah — deleted everything I had said there.

          That was traumatic, as I had made some “friends” there while discussing, and now have no access to continue discussing with them. Considering legal action.

          Liked by 1 person

    • dbobway says:

      Conspiracy theories are usually created by an information vacuum.
      The Sandy Hook mass murder was an investigation full of holes.
      There is not one reason why Alex Jones get’s banned from questioning those irregular parts of any investigation.
      Real crime has a huge market on Netflix and cable TV. They do the same thing as Alex.

      He isn’t far right, he is an entertainer, no more.
      He gets banned while major media are out telling flat out lies that are ruining people’s lives 95% of a 24 hour day.

      Is there a reason why we believe anything the FBI reports?
      They don’t deserve that credibility.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bigly says:

        Exactly. Why can’t the govt weaponize 3 years of telling us trump is a Russian agent and ban them to the dustpans of history?

        Star with those gags on ABC!! Be gone!!!!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Meanwhile, Sergei Brin Google co-founder was born in Soviet Moscow to high level Soviet parents, has a thick Russian accent and loves Crooked Hillary. Google censors the hell out of us in subtle and not so subtle ways. There’s you Russian election interference as plain as day. The “Google is a private company” defense is not persuasive. Anti trust law applies now more than ever. Everything we studied in high school about early 20th century trust busting now comes into play: monopoly, monopsony, interlocking directorates… It’s worse then ever.

          Liked by 1 person

    • jeans2nd says:

      This looks to be the correct vid. Matches my (locally) saved vid. Thank you.
      Agree, Sandy Hook was the killer for AJ.


      • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

        That “Alex Jones Sandy Hook” dustup is all FakeNews. One of his usual rants blown way out of proportion. If it wasn’t that it would be something else that the mainstream globalist news propagandists would use to staple his mouth shut. His coverage of that event was no more off-the-wall than most of the unofficial speculation about the Las Vegas Massacre which the “real news” network journalists swept under the rug.

        Time to take away the web platform providers’ Federal immunity clause that protects the Silicon Valley Godzillas from being sued. If they are going to start being “responsible” for their content by censoring some people, then so be it.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Esperanza says:

      We have the NYT publishing explicit antisemitism and actual replica Nazi anti Jewish campaigns. Explicitly antisemite Congress people and Jones is a problem because he doesn’t believe in Sandy Hook?

      I watched an extract from a commencement speech at that crazy college. They literally talked about cutting down the tall trees ie white people. The same words exactly as we’re used before the Rwandan genocide.

      I was worried about camps. I know wonder if they’ll just try and skip the camps.


  4. paulraven1 says:

    “What we’re watching here, in real time, is this country becoming un-free. The question is, who exactly is defending us in all this?”

    At this point, nobody in a position to do anything.

    This is not an issue that requires “monitoring” or hearings. It is an outrage out of the gate. It requires action.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Rileytrips says:

      Exactly. We have many laws protecting our rights and liberties. Why is no one enforcing them? Under our laws, we cannot be denied services, banned from entry, for political views, or political speech. Speech is not violence, and should never be shut down unless a person threatens acts of violence. Where is our government? They are charged with law enforcement!

      Liked by 5 people

      • LKAinLA says:

        There is no one left to stand because they have all been spied upon and secrets/family matters/corruption/health records threatened with exposure and used against them if they speak up. Rush has been sounding the alarm for years how the Clinton’s have tried to shut down conservative talk radio. My guess is the Silicon Valley men have been spied upon also and now tow the line. We are in this alone except for President Trump. At some point we will have to show force because I refuse to live in a communist country. Live free or die.

        Liked by 3 people

        • SwampRatTerrier says:


          Read this book to discover how totally evil the Uni-Party and their tools (FBI and CIA) have been for decades and decades now.

          Confessions of a DC Madam

          The Politics of Sex, Lies, and Blackmail

          By Henry Vinson, with Nick Bryant

          An insider’s look into a nefarious governmental smear and cover-up campaign

          A firsthand account of how public officials and other well-connected individuals have been compromised or blackmailed by their sexual improprieties, Confessions of a DC Madam relates the author’s time running the largest gay escort service in Washington, DC, and his interactions with VIPs from government, business, and the media who solicited the escorts he employed. The book details the federal government’s pernicious campaign waged against the author to ensure his silence and how he withstood relentless, fabricated attacks by the government, which included incarceration rooted in trumped–up charges and outright lies. This fascinating and shocking facet of government malfeasance reveals the integral role blackmail plays in American politics and the unbelievable lengths the government perpetrates to silence those in the know.


          Liked by 1 person

        • Walt says:

          What LKA said.


        • whodoneit says:



    • Jederman says:

      “Un-free just like Europe.

      “Hearings,” forget about it. There is no point in hearings when the congressional/senate panel members receive campaign contributions from the tech companies they’re supposed to be looking into.

      The entire system is corrupted and is not in our service.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. roccoboy1 says:

    Well worth the watch. Professor Niall Ferguson (in March 2018) prophetically discussing the power of social media platforms in deciding elections and how they will likely use this power to avoid a repetition of the 2016 election.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. paulraven1 says:

    If any issue has the potential to sneak up and steal Trump’s re-election away it is this one. He better wake up and fast.


    • Jederman says:

      No scheisse. I believe that is why this is happening. The DS (definitely includes Silicon Valley) is pulling all the stops to stop PT and are not trying to hide it.

      This is in your face. I sense obama’s fingerprints on this.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Newhere says:

    This clearly and obviously is targeted at the right, and the Trump/anti-corruption/America First movement in particular. However, there are dissidents on the left also facing the same thing. This contingent doesn’t identify as America First — but they are very much anti-corruption and are against the Uniparty on trade and foreign policy.

    I bring this up, because as I see it, the aggressive moves on censorship are a Police State tactic of existential importance; we simply have to fight, and it’s all hands on deck. As a matter of strategy, principal, and fact, I suggest it would be helpful to forge common cause, wherever possible, with targets of any political stripe, and to be mindful that if this becomes construed only in terms of “left” vs “right” it can become self-handicapping. To be specific, I’m talking about left-oriented voices like Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Consortium New, Naked Capitalism, Aaron Mate, Chris Hedges, and some others. This group, by the way, has been just as critical of Russiagate hysteria, and as a consequence has been boxed out of mainstream media (though I don’t know that any has been banned from social media — yet). They absolutely see the game here though, just as they’ve seen through Russiagate. Folks here at CTH surely wouldn’t agree with them on many things; but when it comes to free speech, standing up for those you *don’t* agree with can be extremely powerful. FWIW.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Newhere says:

      I should add that Sundance’s framing in this post is spot on; it’s the Uniparty/establishment of both stripes, who’ve merged interests with Big Tech, against dissenting voices. The Tea Party and Trumpism are clearly the biggest threat and the biggest target, at least for now. There is still a free speech/freedom of the press contingent on the left, and it’s worth looking for it and helping out where possible. Fomenting left/right antagonism, especially on issues where the Uniparty is uniquely vulnerable to public sentiment — like free speech, trade and wars — is one of its biggest weapons and means of consolidating control.


      • TreeClimber says:

        One possibly unexpected ally in this fight may be the self-styled radical feminists, who are against transgenderism.


        • Newhere says:

          Interesting point. Related: indicators and examples are increasing that the left may well just canabalize or collapse on itself — meaning the crazies are attacking and alienating the old-fashioned traditional “left” to the point there’ll be nothing left but a bunch of unrecognizable zealots, protected and aggrandized by an authoritarian Big State.

          By “traditional left” I mean leftists whose “liberal” social views were predicated on a principled and dogged adherence to free speech, free thinking, and anti-authoritarian impulses of all sorts; and whose “socialistic” market and economic views were grounded in the social contract, i.e., the concept that a democratic polity is based on, and requires, mutual and reciprocal allegiances among fellow citizens. The concept of citizenry seems almost total eroded — that is, the notion of free people voluntarily sacrificing a degree of autonomy to the body politic on a mutual basis; the legitimacy and authority of government issuing from the *consent* of the governed. The primacy of citizenship (and consent of the governed) used to dictate on the left policies like collective bargaining and tight immigration to empower labor vis a vis capital; it used to demand an adversarial press, constantly suspicious of power in all forms; it used to spot immediately the inherent danger of silencing or suppressing any form of speech. What we have now is a narcissistic, infantile, and decadent left that basks in the excesses of a Big State — a deranged feedback loop in which an elite ruling class glorifies and props up the conceits and fantasies of the fringe in order to suppress the “intolerant” masses.

          What the hell happened. The only brightside (speaking personally) is that once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It may take a long time. But the democrat left is imploding.

          Liked by 1 person

    • felipe says:

      New – I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I was particularly impressed with Tucker Carlson’s interview with Glenn Greenwald, either on Wednesday or Thursday evening. Glenn is respected and reaches (I suspect) a very different audience than CTH readers or Fox evening talk shows. Glenn was on fire in that segment. I see this as a helpful element of the turning of the worm.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Newhere says:

        Me too. Glenn takes A LOT of flak on the left. But he’s also a not a Trump supporter, so in our current “take sides” media environment, he’s basically homeless — except, interestingly, he’s frequent invited onto Tucker Carlson and Jimmy Dore. I listen to both — Carlson and Dore — and find them extremely interesting. They’re both partisans, and yet they are each critical of their own “side” and tend to make virtually the same point on Uniparty corruption, greed, and the dynamics of how it all works. Dore in fact targets his own side — the democrat establishment — and was kicked out of Cenk Ugyur’s “Young Turks” because of it. Dore actually has highlighted a few of Carlson’s monologues (his angle is “how can even *Tucker Carlson* get this right and the sell-outs in the MSM and democrat party get it wrong?” … so the credit is backhanded). Anyway — my hope is for a realignment among the dissidents vs. the uniparty. Glenn is among the few visible voices on the left who hasn’t been ruined by TDS. Would love to see a conversation between Carlson and Dore.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Esperanza says:

      This is an extremely good point. Ideologies which rely on “othering” people and destroying them run out of victims really quickly they then have to turn on each other.

      In France it’s called the Red Line. I woke up one morning and it had somehow moved under me without my knowledge (it’s like they hand out talking points or something). However once outside you realise there’s more of you out than in.


    • Lindenlee says:

      Greenwald is left, but I believe he is an honest journalist, and seeks truth. I have been increasingly impressed with him. Tucker has him on rather often.


  8. ristvan says:

    Lurking Lawyer here. This is a fairly new and very complex issue. An old legal aphorism: there is no precedent for the unprecedented. But the law is continuously adapted to new circumstances anyway, reasoning by extension and analogy, often without a new act of congress.

    A few initial impressions after a couple hours quick skimming, for Treeper consideration.
    1. The constitution arguably does give Congress power to legislate on this subject, no different than anti discrimination laws in the era of desegregation. The mechanism is via the second clause of A1§8.18, flowing in this case from §8.3 interstate commerce clause, with political speech a form of ‘commerce’ by simply extending the central finding of Citizen United v FEC to actual private citizens like James Woods.

    2. The platform versus publisher remedy is tortuous because has to be addressed by individuals, rather than as a ‘blanket’ solution. But it could, along with public outrage and a few expensive litigation losses, cause the situation to self correct. Doubtful given Silicon Valley leftist bias root causes as revealed by Project Veritas.

    3. There may already be existing laws and regulations that can be applied. One possibility is the following. When the FCC overturned Obama’s 2015 ‘net neutrality’ rules under Trump via Ajit Pai in 2019, FCC established a tripartite general internet regulatory framework. Part one was consumer protection, expressly returned by FCC to the FTC.
    Federal Trade Commission was established in 1914 for two purposes:
    a. To prevent unfair methods of competition
    b. To prevent unfair acts or practices that affect commerce. Now cycle back to ‘political commerce’ under Citizen United and there may be a pre existing regulatory route within the FTC.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Newhere says:

      Reading this it strikes me the issue isn’t as much having the “right laws” to address new technology (let’s call that necessary but not sufficient) — the crux of it though is a fundamental disconnect between the governors and the governed. The interests of the citizenry and the ruling class simply aren’t aligned, and that breakdown isn’t fixed by any law or set of laws.

      We didn’t get here overnight or by accident. It has been a gradual consolidation of economic and political power, which seeks absolute control, and technology seems to make that all too tempting and possible. Laws to address technology can’t help us until the relationship between the rulers and the ruled is repaired; and in some ways, it’s a race against the totalization of control that technology offers. We’re living at a critical time.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jederman says:

        “…a gradual consolidation of economic and political power, which seeks absolute control…” The globalism end state.

        Start breaking up these huge corporations. Stimulate competition and innovation. I don’t give a rat’s rear if the CEO only makes $10M instead of $100M from now on. So sorry, I really like capitalism but what we have now is not capitalism.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Newhere says:

          Agree. If we want to dig into laws — and Ristvan quite helpful on this — reinvigorating anti-trust is central. The idea that capitalism is in any real danger is a canard. Calling any critique of the status quo a threat to capitalism is how the globalists stifle any meaningful conversation on the what the hell is going on.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Lindenlee says:

          And diffuse political power back to the people. Make small Congressional districts of no more than 50,000, with reps that office from the district. It is worth a try. Half the job is already done. See: http://www.tacticalcivics.com. Worth a try.


    • Catherine Elstad says:

      Yet equal air time for political candidates lost as did the liquor Co.s (not beer) win the right to advertise on t.v again.

      Seems like we need some of the great defenders of reason from the 1970s at the FTC to return. Remember when it was law that they couldn’t peddle liquor (aka the hard stuff) on television?

      Or is that what Twitter is trying to do? And do we just use that to stop twitter censorship?


    • Ristvan,

      Jones has hired the same lawyer that is working for the Kids that were slandered by the media recently. Representing the High School kid(s) with the native American and filed a huge lawsuit against CNN and the others.

      Your list is pretty close to his.



    • Sentient says:

      Hopefully relief from this censorship can be obtained under existing law because I can’t see Congress passing new laws to ensure free speech. Most Republicans are way too chickenshit to withstand headlines like “ Republicans Vote to Protect NAZI’s and Klansmen”. Because that’s what the headline would be.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. TomA says:

    The attempted coup against Trump has effectively failed and now the Deep State is very fearful that Barr may actually investigate the prior criminality of the Obama Administration and various holdover Executive Branch officials that have been working feverishly to maintain a coverup. The stakes in this conflict could not be higher. Many important people (including politicians) are now at serious risk of indictment, prosecution, conviction, and possible imprisonment. Like cornered rats, they will pull out all the stops and use every tool of their power to prevent this outcome. A war is waging behind the scenes, and it may break out into the open very soon. If so, censorship may become the least of our worries if things get tangibly hot.


  10. Right to reply says:

    Personally, I have always been a proponent of self censorship. Overstep the mark, and there will be either a legal, or physical remedy.

    Censorship with an agenda is already fully effective within the education system. Get em while they’re young because no youngster wants to be without friends, or in reality, denied group-think!

    Liked by 1 person

    • TreeClimber says:

      I will grant that youngsters don’t want to be without friends and a “group,” but having grown up without said friends/group, I maintain that it’s actually what develops critical thinking.


  11. Fools Gold says:

    And remember, the guberment has a data base that when used can make just about anyone say uncle unless their willing to die. Don’t think for a second the uniparty want use it again if it’s not halted now! Primaries matter, it’s your country and lives at stake.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Carrie says:

    This is a good thread about Section 230

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Tim Hearden says:

    I posted this link on the open thread, but it seems appropriate here too. Consumers are the ones that need to act and soon. http://norcalag.blogspot.com/2019/05/censorship-is-their-business-plan-heres.html


  14. Phil aka Felipe says:

    The Graphic Sundance posted in the article had a quote by Pericles, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

    Here’s another quote by Pericles:

    “FREEDOM IS THE SURE POSSESSION OF THOSE ALONE WHO HAVE THE COURAGE TO DEFEND IT.” (deserving of a shout out, don’t you think?)

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Smiley says:

    I believe a CA resident should sue them because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech.

    The CA Supreme Court ruled in 2012:

    “Pruneyard applies only to “common areas” of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure…”

    Compare that to the FB mission:

    “Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”

    See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

    Liked by 2 people

    • According to the wiki page about that case at least 31 other states have the same type of law. If so, this is just another in a very long list of why social media is way out of bounds.

      Meaning they would have to deny service to users in all those states.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sentient says:

      Wasn’t that supposed to safeguard Brendan Eich from being fired by Mozilla for donating to the CA Prop 8 (anti gay marriage) cause? As I recall, he was still forced out. Freedom of conscience didn’t count for squat in that case.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. EJS says:

    From the Holocaust Museum:
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    This is the equivalent of a modern book burning. Now you know why they want to eliminate the history of this nation and it founders. They hide behind the vail that the founders were “racist”, they want hidden the truth they spoke. History is written by the victors, we must be victorious in this struggle.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. concerned3 says:

    Why are companies like Facebook and Twitter allowed to tell us what is acceptable Speech? They are nothing more than a Public Service. Why are these companies not being prosecuted for violating our 1st. Amendment?

    A Public Service on Behalf of the First Amendment

    November 20, 2017

    The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech. It is a concept that means different things to different people, but one NSC student has created a public service announcement to remind everyone of what could happen without that freedom. Ali Akbari, a radio-television major at NSC, used a class project from his audio production class as a submission for the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Educational Foundation’s Freedom of Speech PSA contest. His submission earned first place and a $2,500 scholarship.

    The Freedom of Speech PSA is a challenging assignment that requires students to think about the meaning of the First Amendment. William Kinnally, Ph.D., has incorporated the contest into his audio production courses every semester; he created an assignment that requires students to use skills such as writing for an audience, recording, producing and synthesizing the concepts studied in class into a brief, public message. Akbari was excited to submit his work for the contest.



    Liked by 2 people

  18. Carrie says:

    Here Robert Barnes is comparing the small town baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and the Internet companies (Facebook, Twitter, etc)

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Seattlewonder says:

    Could this case have an impact on this issue?

    US Supreme Court 1946: Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town’s sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment. The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties. NOTING THAT OWNERSHIP “DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN ABSOLUTE DOMINION.” THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE MORE AN OWNER OPENS HIS PROPERTY UP TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, THE MORE HIS RIGHTS ARE CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO ARE INVITED IN.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. MontanaMel says:

    As stated….a very serious threat to our Nation today As is the EU Pres saying that “no Nationalist” will be allowed to be “elected” this fall by the EU Commission….. ie: the VOTE won’t matter, unless we approve of the winner… Stay FROSTY my friends…our day approaches rapidly.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sundown says:

      Wonder what set off the globalist totalitarian hacks. Obama spoke of this capability not long ago. Soon, one may be able to create videos of anyone saying anything and make it appear credible.

      Results? A fake leader announcing a war?

      Maybe these platforms have outlived their usefulness. Too bad Barry turned us into a service economy.

      Been reading where companies are reporting that they can’t find workers … and why Trump may be bringing in foreigners. I say b.s. I checked out one of them – an agricultural based business in West Texas where any job would be a plum on the ground. No way that they cannot find American citizens to drive those air conditioned tractors. No way.

      Would they lie? Do bears ___ in the woods? It’s all about the money and our country will be trashed for the interests of the elite.

      We’ve become too informed. We can learn about a false flag before they spin their narratives. And they cannot have that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sundown says:

        Sorry. Wrong link.

        Here it is:

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Sundown says:

    Fun times.


  22. thedoc00 says:

    Folks need to recognize as the EU did, there are a few facets to this problem. There are sanctioning all three for monopolistic behavior.

    There are the platforms; Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

    There are the actual carriers, who control the frequencies, wires, channels, etc. that carry the signals (data).

    There are the Operating Systems upon which the platforms function.

    Control and actions of the last two facets are the most dangerous as those facets actually control which platforms, sites, blogs, etc. etc. are actually allowed to transmit and receive anything. Regulating the platforms will be next to impossible but the government does need to get a handle on control of the carriers and OS to ensure any form of access to all.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Liked by 3 people

  24. concerned3 says:

    So what is the different between companies like Twitter and Facebook and the Clinton Charitable Foundation?

    In one case, we have Hillary Clinton pretending to be a Clinton Charitable Foundation. In another, we have Twitter and Facebook pretending to be a Public Service.

    In one case, we have the so called Clinton Charitable Foundation selling products like Access to Government Power, it does not own. In the other case, we have so called public services like Twitter and Facebook selling your personal information, it does own.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. NJF says:

    Just had a huge debate with my 18 yo son, who considers himeself conservative/libertarian.

    HE doesn’t get it. He admits there is hypocrisy & believes it doesn’t matter, “ bc bad people should be banned”. I reply, “ no, either everyone is banned on the same guidelines or no one is banned.”

    He brought up Alex Jones and sandy hook. The holy grail of conspiracies. Robert Barnes is his lawyer & when he said on Levin’s Show “many quotes attributed to Alex he never said” I did some research.

    If you duck duck the story it seems Alex had on crazy people who believed in the “it’s a hoax story” Alex himself doesn’t actually say half the stuff he’s blamed for.

    It’s beciming dangerous.

    Liked by 2 people

    • oldumb says:

      I am not arguing with you NJF!!
      I don’t care what Alex Jones said and if he was right or wrong, that is never the point. I must always defend his right to say it. Hate speech IS free speech. There is NO free speech without HATE speech. That means everything. The “N” word, the “F” word and terrible blasphemies. The Lord God almighty leaves our word up to us, why should anyone else assume the right to modify my words.

      People should be able to say racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic comments without anyone penalizing them in any way other than the words they choose to say back and avoiding their presence.

      F Zuck.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 3rdday61 says:

        100% agree, oldumb.
        Hate speech, hate crime, thought crime, social justice, guilty until proven innocent mentality nonsense, etc.
        All of it requires a suspension of individual thought, replaced by some form of group think, professionally groomed to fit the ‘narrative ‘ of the day.
        ‘Perception management’ is what Col Allen West referred to these indoctrination attempts as.
        Absolutely correct. God gives us discernment to help us make our own choices.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. leftnomore says:

    As soon as the current crop of desensitized, SM addicted juveniles are voting, big tech can drop all tolerance of us ala Skynet and rule to their heart’s content. I share my vehicle with hundreds of youth a week, and believe me, it’s a lost cause.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. smurfette says:

    Go Tucker!

    Retweet, please!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

      “Yes, talking to people is my primary function”
      GIGO ~ Orange man bad? Orange man bad.
      “OK, I will destroy all humans.”

      Droid count Faceberg’s long lost twin?


  28. Hmmm... says:

    As much attention as this is getting now this really started longer ago when they banned all the racist groups. If you want to see the slippery slope in action then you can go back and watch the moves they made. While I’m glad to see people waking up about the issue the number of free speech warriors who stood up for the KKK getting banned were extremely few. It doesn’t matter how vile or unpopular the speech it still should be protected because they will always go after the least popular speech first.

    If I remember correctly they also lumped in a couple of very debatable figures in their first purge. I think Gavin McGiness (sp?) and the proud boys were grouped in with the nazis and KKK which should have been a giant flashing warning that it was a bad idea but it is really unpopular to stand up for Nazis and the KKK so very few people did. To give you an idea of where they are going with this these guys not only were banned from the social media companies, they were also banned by hosting companies and financial service companies.

    Anyway the most important point that can be derived from that little bit of history on how we got here is that it is never a good idea to argue for or against the content of the speech being banned. It’s the trap they are hoping we fall in. It doesn’t matter what Alex Jones said about Newton. He shouldn’t be banned for it period. Frankly the racists should be allowed to speak too. That’s when freedom of speech as a concept is put to the test when unpopular things are allowed not when popular speech is allowed.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. citizen817 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Not only is this article SPOT ON it [IS] a…TRUISM…and it is Incumbent for all FREE People to have OUR Voices Heard because Silence is giving Approval.
    (WWII Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller.)
    When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
    When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
    When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
    ~When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.~


  31. hard masada says:

    @3:43 PJW said something that triggered me, remember all the small businesses who would not have their products be made for or at a same-sex marriage event but were forced to (by the Judaical branch of Govt) provide their services or be fined heavily each day they do not fulfill the request? Why isn’t that standard applied in THIS case? Weren’t they PRIVATE (the small biz) companies, as well? It used to be when a precedent was made by the COURTS it would effect all, under that ruling.


  32. spoogels says:

    Trump should wack them with a MASSIVE TAX BILL and begin ANTI-TRUST PROSECUTIONS

    Liked by 1 person

  33. spoogels says:

    Ryan Saavedra
    ‏Verified account @RealSaavedra

    Texas bill would allow state to sue social media companies like Facebook and Twitter over free speech


    Liked by 1 person

  34. askandgettruth says:

    haven’t we learned anything from history ?when you take away peoples voices the only way they can be heard is through a very loud and violent revolution. i guess the war hawks welcome this money maker.god help our children to realize this, cause it doesn’t look like this generation will do anything but watch the tube and video games. i am afraid that won’t be nearly enough to stop what is about to come, and soon.


  35. askandgettruth says:

    the demorats have learned that after the 2016 elections they needed to shut down the conservative voice. facebook u-tube and twitter and there’s more have been in the govt. back pocket since they were formed. and if they didn’t these company’s would not be here today. does operation MOCKINGBIRD ring any very loud bells ??? look at CNN MSNBC etc etc


  36. Tom W says:

    I don’t patronize Facebook; Twitter or any of the rest of “social media.” I’ve mostly excised Google from my life (no Android; no Google browser; YouTube alas can’t shake, but use selectively). Why help feed those who wish to deconstruct America?

    That said, not patronizing them is just a stop-gap; they need to be regulated like utilities or, at least, lose their “platform” status. I hate more government regulation or intrusion, but in this case it’s the lesser of two evils.


  37. Bill says:

    Sue the big tech companies in their home state. Read about the Pruneyard decision. Under the California constitution a privately- owned shopping center was ruled to be a public square for purposes of free speech. Anyone banned should file a lawsuit against Suckburger, et. al. California Superior Court.


  38. lisaginnz says:

    “where’s the White house in all this….nowhere” says Tucker….

    INCORRECT… President Trump RECENTLY tweeted about this VERY topic. They ARE watching this …. government regulations may be needed for the behemoth organizations – like Twitter or Facebook…. ALL speech should be allowed. If any “groups” are banned – they should be the ones actually promoting violence (Antifa, Islamists, CAIR) etc. …… but UNFAIR to say “White house is nowhere” on this topic.


  39. Ronna Romney McDaniel and the RNC are co-conspirator #1 in this end-run to destroy free speech rights. Based on the legal timeline, they are at least a year late in protecting the 2020 election from being hijacked by Big Tech. Trump needs to replace McDaniel with a tough competitor.


  40. jeans2nd says:

    There is another, more insidious, motive that may be behind this.
    There is currently a big push beginning to reinstate Net Neutrality. Big Tech is fully on board with Net Neutrality, and may be behind this push for Net Neutrality.

    Recall recently Google or Fakebook or Whoever Whatsits, i no longer recall, asked for Congress for “sensible” regulations. Congress did not respond (What, me work?? they all said collectively…).
    But this new Net Neutrality push is being sold on Big Tech not able to be regulated under Net Neutrality.

    But – SUPRISE!!! – all competition is eliminated with Net Neutrality.
    Now, isn’t that odd? Fancy that.

    What better way to move RINOs from their “less regs” mantra than to ban – Conservatives!
    Now isn’t that clever?
    Who wuda thunk it?

    From a Hoover Inst discussion held 2 May 2019 –
    “Silicon Valley giants such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon are facing tough bipartisan scrutiny. As Congress debates the “Save the Internet Act,” which would restore the FCC’s Net Neutrality regulations for Internet Service Providers, many believe that the state of the Internet has fundamentally shifted since 2015 and more focus should be applied to dominant tech platforms and their effects on privacy, small businesses, innovation, competition and our democratic discourse.”

    “Panelists and speakers will discuss how the non-discrimination principles underpinning “net neutrality” to protect against the blocking of lawful content and anti-competitive behavior could apply across the internet ecosystem.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GgEpqego6M
    Main speaker was Sen Josh Hawley. This was just uploaded by Hoover, will listen tomorrow.


  41. whodoneit says:

    The propaganda loving, anti free speech, anti truth far left brigade – there’s your Nazis. Yeah, them – the ones always calling everyone else a Nazi.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s