Control is a reaction to fear; it has always been thus. In this example Google, the parent company of YouTube, is removing all copies of President Trump’s CPAC speech claiming the content violates their terms of service. RSBN broadcast the speech then hosted it on their YouTube channel. As a result RSBN has been suspended from their YouTube account:
Do not simply skim over this issue because we are becoming numb to the targeting and ideological censorship. Think about this from the perspective that a corporation is targeting their political opposition. It’s not that George Orwell was correct; the issue is that ideological leftists like the process that Orwell predicted.
They want you to know there are two standards. They want you to feel inferior to their standard.
What is one of the most famous phrases in medicine?
A: “I want a second opinion.”
Yet second opinions have been censored by Google–even those of good doctors and world-class specialists. Except for Dr. Franken-Fauci. He’s allowed four or five. We would still be giving George Washington-bleedings if Big Tech was around then.
But just like the censorship of Actual President Trump in the service of the Election Fraud Coup, this medical censorship is all politics, too. And politics of the worst sort: One-Party Corporate/State Fascism.
Real people engage in politics as a means to secure the Good Life. For Leftists, politics IS the Good Life. That’s why News, Weather, Sports, Sex, Education, Medicine, Finance and Entertainment are all hyper-politicized now. It’s a sickness, a power-mad false religion without boundaries–just like Tower of Babel.
I want a second opinion. His.
Loud and clear Gipper.
Attack,Attack and Attack again the barstards are being Attacked world wide now .
NO SURRENDER EVER.
Its hard to affect change when we don’t have a truly representative government for “The people” “By the People.” We need a Cyber Bill of Rights to be passed to address this issue and until we address the voter Integrity such as fighting H1 bill, these other fires that are burning will just serve as distractions. We need to stay focused with a actionable plan in this war. Get out and start knocking on doors!
There are many of us meeting this weekend. The rest have to catch up. This is not the time to wait!!
These constant acts of censorship against Conservative views from private sector behemoths are infuriating. But I don’t see any indication from “the combined right” that there is a major interest to set up or support the setup of alternates to these fascist Big Tech monsters.
sundance and his tech gurus etc have worked hard to successfully build their own secure website that also ensures reasonable expectations for the privacy rights of their subscribers. All websites must follow this lead but there is still an urgent need IMO, for “the right” to have its own communication network to replace Twitter (Parler or GAB?) and their own “online video-sharing platform” (Rumble) channel.
If there are enough Americans, especially those with deep pockets, still interested in preserving their nation from Dementia Joe’s and Big Techs etc ruinous policies, then financing these necessary initiatives to help counter them should not be the problem. Is it tech limitations at Parler and Rumble? Disinterest? Internal squabbles? Other concerns.
Help is on the way within weeks
Youtube cancelled it.
Rumble has it.
https://rumble.com/ve9azh-donald-trumps-entire-2021-cpac-speech.html
Let’s up Rumble and gab and Telegram and parler by MILLIONS.
Despite all of the left’s crowing they are terrified…with good reason.
AWESOME!
It is time, past time, that we start using their competition!
Wait…
We need the RSBN version, so that we can support them, and…
so that we can send a clear message to Google / Youtube.
CSPAN has it too
We are already on rumble and telegram. I don’t click you tube ever.
Orwell predicted?
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” —U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Consider this statement by Mussolini:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State–a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values–interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
I’ve been learning and debating this for some time.
We KNOW censorship is bad. It’s horrible. The answer the the debate about free speech is MORE SPEECH.
I will NEVER change my mind or opinion about this..under any circumstances.
Now…lets examine some of the very real risks with imposing legislation about S230 wrt tech companies. This is related, so pay attention.
One argument is that by removing the waivers/exceptions that these tech companies have wrt S230 makes them accountable directly to content on their platforms. Perhaps its some comment on a video…or even a link…or even just some satire. While the intended purpose is to restrict these companies from banning certain kinds of speech/content…there IS a definite unintended consequence..that becomes inevitable.
If waivers to S230 are removed, then these companies ALSO face direct liability, not ONLY related to censorship practices, but ALSO when they do it wrong.
example/general: Youtube has a video making satire of islam. In defense of free speech it is not censored. But then some ambulance chasing attorney takes up a lawsuit and says: Hate speech. The effect of S230 being applied makes youtube directly liable to the suit and claims.
ultimately, when you reduce these “problems” …and you do the “math”…what happens is that you are requiring THE GOVERNMENT, THE COURTS, AND THESE COMPANIES to determine what the rules are for permissible lawful speech.
Which is precisely what you never want to ever have happen. One persons humor becomes a unlawful act to another.
One persons opinion, political rhetoric, informed OR NOT, becomes subject to some test!
WHO makes the rules for a test?
you…me? government? courts?
and then, when you consider what happens IF these high profile companies face, it then becomes some standard that ALL companies would follow. Would be REQUIRED to follow.
all it would take is to have one single person to get insulted, or claim harm…and then bang, ANY online entity is not subject to some kind of legal action.
in the early days of the internet, this was predicted….and there is a REASON why many of the early pioneers were keenly interested in debates about a FREE INTERNET. I got the chance to meet and listen to and debate with Tim Bernier-Lee as well many others.
I dare say, none of them would agree what is going on has anything to do with how the internet was envisioned to produce: free environment where all speech was tolerated. Not moderated..not censored.
so when we have these debates about harms, and the subject of how S230 will somehow FIX the free speech debate, or how it will FIX censorship problems.
It’s a very good idea to recognize there is every expectation how congress will screw it up, given these same companies command the highest order to lobby power in the world, and thus it will ultimately result in small, remote, fringe websites being STOMPED OUT OF EXISTENCE….all it will take is someone to take issue…
the radical left and corrupts SALIVATE at the opportunity to exploit any S230 legislation…It would essentially crush the competition, destroy these smaller minority voices…who not having the legal resources or the money to fight back against these lawsuits.
The answer to free speech is MORE SPEECH.
Tread very lightly at the premise argument that suggest laws will fix censorship. It will only produce tests…tests made by people who are fully engaged in censoring anything and everything that does not align to their political, financial, ideological goals.
There is no magic dust to solve this free speech and censorship problem. We should not be engaging in silly ideas that some new regulation or law will be a solution. And we should suspicious to ANYONE proposes such a law can solve it.
More speech indeed. As far as ambulance chasing lawyers go, well, there are slander and libel laws that require a level of proof in court, that a particular individual was actually harmed by lies and not truth.
Didn’t the Obama regime slip through some regulation or other that prevented the media from being liable for those charges? I’ve heard it mentioned here sometimes but I forget the details.
That would make sense – the media used to avoid overt lying, presumably for fear of being sued, and today they simply bathe in it.
I’m not certain (not implying it is not true) about regulations in the obama administration.
but as recent as 2018 congress stepped in with the EARN IT act. A sort of “safe harbor” provision. It’s controversial because the subject matter is highly contentious: child pornography. And when I say contentious, I mean the application of liability to a online company that unwittingly happens to host such content, with the emphasis on “recklessness”….I believe congress understood there should be regulations to hold companies responsible for hosting unlawful and very dangerous content, but also to understand that it is in fact very difficult to master this in the real world. Some of the arguments are strained and suspicious wrt end to end encryption as just as recent as a few days ago with FBI Director Wray and the Homeland security advocating some new laws needed to create a means for law enforcement to thwart it at a fundamental level…AN idea I will never support.
and for those paying attention (the media obviously didn’t paint it correctly), Hawley and Johnson had positioned their questions and the argument about sweeping mass surveillance anticipating the arguments about end to end encryption would be advanced AGAIN by the police state actors.
see, at it’s core whether the press and media accepts it or not, what IS at issue, is to what extent will the government be allowed to not merely collect private and public speech, but to assert ultimately by force of persecution what is acceptable.
in terms of what makes for dissent and an agrieved citizenship of course the state would take issue…the entire purpose of an illegitimate police state is to assert what right speech should be.
and that alone means we should never allow or conduct our affairs in accordance with such tyranny.
it’s free speech all the way down.
President Trump was many things, but exposing the rotten set of ideas and destructive practices of a corrupt central government was and will always be his most important political achievement. He has exposed corrupt actors, by name and by behavior. He went to the extremes to prove that point. And I am frankly thankful. One cannot suggest this could have been achieved in any other way but the tack that he decided it should be maneuvered.
For quite a long time, citizens in this country have been controlled by a media and our so called representatives to “behave” ourselves. But when you examine what kind of behavior that would ultimately achieve, it was simple control in order to advance THEIR IDEAS AND AGENDAS….
Which has also been purposely convoluted by high-priced lawyers and politicos.
Agreed, and that is precisely what I am getting at. There already ARE “laws” that courts are guided to inform and control how they make decisions (Yes, I just snorted coffee out of the nostrils too…sigh)..
Section 230 applied to internet companies are particularly significant in MANY ways.
first, modifying the existing “model” flies in the face of all prior doctrine. Let me explain: it has been argued that internet companies not be burdened in the same way for liability to third party content and that argument has been supported not merely by internet lobby powers (and their lawyers), but also by independent defenders of free speech advocates. This pretty much happened as soon as the internet became popular as a means to communicate.
second, the “internet” is decentralized by design, and also by its practical use. In this sense, it is quite different …it’s not a physical piece of paper, the content is quite dynamic, with a host of participants far beyond those “owning” the platform. The very idea and premise of the internet is ultimately about the EXCHANGE of communications by everyone. Up and down. It’s not like a newspaper or a magazine, or even a tv broadcast show. On those platforms there are few opportunities for such a dynamic exchange. i.e, you and I would never be having a comments exchange about anything on any prior technology…We would be engaged in private exchanges perhaps, but not ON the platforms earlier in use. I’m not adding my videos to some cable news broadcast. Nor was it possible to respond to anything in the former mediums. Internet changed all that. Or more precisely, the technology was manifest in free exchange by a new technology, devices and the software to allow this to happen, that never did prior. Sure you could send in a comment to the editor and hope it gets printed…perhaps…but not at scale…and ultimately the editor decides who to publish or at all. And often that meant “cleaning” it up for final chop.
third, there have been few deleterious erosions of this free speech since the acceptance (implicity acknowledge), of the principles of an open free internet. This was useful and practical to the model of almost every single business and interest that has a product that relies on the technology. the very basis of social media is constructed on mass participation with few controls over moderating what it right or wrong speech.
fourth, the arguments that right and wrong speech can be measured, is NOT A NEW CHALLENGE. There is in fact massive numbers of case law and not solely related to internet medium. All of these cases are weighed on the basis of how the constitution suggests as a guidance on the protections of free speech, censorship from private companies, and also the peculiar nature of companies that present business models that are one part private revenue business, public facing and publicly funded models, and also pseudo publishing and “news” providers.
So yes, I agree many of these issues rest with the courts they are not novel arguments and one should not assume that new rules are necessary for internet companies, without also understanding the very different conditions in which they are operated.
Let me give an example…As much as it is in poor form, I can walk up to someone and tell them they are a scumbag and their mom wears combat boots. In a public place.
believe it or not…this is not a crime. (and thank god…I would hold a record)..
I can also say something that is demonstrably wrong and false. In other words, I can be intentionally wrong….
but no one cares, and certainly the courts don’t either.
We just saw a case about this recently in I think Wisconsin…Something about a confederate flag hung in someone house that offended a neighbor. Courts have just said: this is NOT unlawful.
and THAT really expresses the key thing to remember: two people or more can AND WILL have a different perspective and notion about what they consider speech that is reasonable. There are no tests in measuring what is right or what is wrong. Not in the fundamental way. And we should all be very pleased about this.
In the extreme cases, sure it seems silly we would not for example hold that saying something like 2+2 = 7 and protecting that obvious defect. But that is the very nature of what makes free speech so important. NOT EVERYONE KNOWS THE ANSWER IS 4. And more specifically, arriving at the “correct” answer which may be obvious to you and me, is not so obvious to anyone NOT KNOWING it. In no small way, there is a tremendous amount of democracy in how information becomes truth. It achieves this state when free speech, in all its errors and warts are displayed, is protected….the “right” answer does not just spontaneously ignite and present itself.
the very usefulness of science itself is that it is flexible,…the problems of tomorrow require we test the truths of today! This is a human condition, where free speech cannot be tested for right or for wrong.
Where I see this going horribly wrong is to apply some tests to right and wrong speech…and where does that end? bad islamic comedy then becomes what kind of speech is allowed in school…to children..the very youngest who should be engaged and free to make mistake..to learn the ART of how to assess and become monitors of their own thoughts and actions.
we should not ever want to be in the business where courts by congress is in a position to set forth boundaries for right and wrong speech.
Only in the most narrow of circumstances, where true harm, demonstrated in a court should it be even entertained.
There is this famous case Falwell V. Flynt. If you read the decision, many of these constitutional concepts are thoroughly examined. Of course the humor and satire itself is very rude and offensive at many levels…but there is a core examination about free speech and why it is to be protected in nearly all forms that is valuable to understand and appreciate.
The problem with society (and many internet companies) is that there is a disturbing amount of dishonesty about what free speech is really about. And from a historical perspective, why the founders were so particularly interested in providing it with the highest priority.
The paradox is that there will ALWAYS BE an argument about what free speech is all about..unironically too!
God Bless America
I heard exactly this argument explained by some guest on the Dan B show last summer sometime.
It is correct; those stamped out would be small companies with insufficient Lawfare available. The problem is not binary.
At the time the guest and Dan agreed that there is a key phrase in Section 230, which if removed, might be a big step in the right direction.
I forget the wording, but after listing p*rn and violence in general, Section 230 says that speech can be censored for something like “other issues” which essentially boils down to “this can mean whatever we feel like making it mean.”
Removing that part would help make the slope less slippery at least.
The discrimination clause in the U.S. Constitution could also use an amendment to include “political opinion.” Just in my opinion…
Well stated post.
And, this is why they always jump on the “OMG, you cant’ say that word. Or you can’t put it that way- that’s raaaacist. Or that’s sexist. Or that’s mean. Or that’s bullying”
They have gotten half the country to buy into right speak and wrong speak mentalities. There is no such thing as hate speech. None. And, let’s say you want to label it as “hate speech”, it’s still protected free speech. In fact, one could say our Constitution and the rights bestowed on us by our creator as outlined in our great document say that “hate” speech is why these documents exist in the first place.
Well, yes…but it’s also important to notice that one cannot hold the principle of a free speech argument the other way either.
for example, using your comment….my PROTECTED RIGHT exists even and especially when I say, that IS racists, sexist and bullying.
free speech isn’t about some “minority report” “PRE-CRIME” solution.
great ideas, superior facts, and good conduct IS the outcome of free speech to debate the finer points..even those we might assume “everyone should just know already”.
It seems inefficient and unnecessary to someone who claims to already have won the debate. But therein lies the very problem: truths are largely not self evidence. People REALLY ARE NOT EQUAL AT ALL. Not equal in intelligence. Not equal in education. Not equal in circumstance. Not equal in power. Not equal in even being on the same frequency about a particular subject. this is NOT A BAD THING. We are simply not GODS. But being of sufficient self awareness that is by free speech and the exchange of it, that the debate becomes the way to achieve a better understanding of our realities…How we can operate to inform one another, to test bad and good ideas. All requires a very liberal set of expectations about how we are to allow for even the most unpopular speech…
I often think of free speech as free will. at the very edge of consciousness is a state of uncertainty…free will requires to make some choice. It may be a good one, it may not so good. But how does one notice the difference? Is it self evident? Or does it become evident when those choices FACE THE WORLD and are subjected to other ideas?
imagine being stuck in one single choice for the rest of your life? Lets say, someone taught you wrong, and you assumed to true ….that the earth was the center of the universe? Or that there really is a santa claus? Or that your political party has your best interests in mind and is not deceiving you for some other agenda?
at what point could you ever change your mind about their bad ideas?
free speech….open debate.
I know I am simplifying the entire thing…and that’s because it can be made to be simple and still remain true.
and that is one of the fundamental reasons why the founders were so genius about the design of the protections for it. It is a NATURAL RIGHT. One that is gifted to us…wait for it.
BY GOD.
GOD HAS GIVEN HUMANS the ability to express a free will. To understand and to KNOW a truth. Free speech then becomes the very medium to achieve the truth.
When does ANY elected GOP representative STAND UP to this? Does any of the so called “conservative” think tanks actually start filing lawsuits?
Does the Supreme Court of the United States of America ever do it’s damn job and actually hear a REAL case about the violations of the Constitution that are ONGOING against it’s citizens?
All of these corporations need to be broken into a million pieces for the abuse of power they are wielding.
We can stand up all we want to, but it seems to me that members of Congress, the Supreme Court AND OTHERS are going to have to be forced to do the damn jobs they are paid for!!!!
If Lawfare can sue everything that moves and win in court…why can’t we? WHERE ARE THE LAWSUITS????!!!
Where is the conservative George Soros that is willing spend his money in the US and abroad(NGO’s) to elect real conservatives down to the District Attorney level? Who among the wealthy right are willing to use their wealth and sacrifice that wealth if needed to fight for the cause? We were told they Kochs and that was just another lie.
Conservatives own the radio but that talent has rarely been used on TV. Rush did it in the nineties at 1:00 am in the morning and had large ratings but we have had no other real attempt other than Fox. Fox was quickly infiltrated. Breitbart said politics is downstream of culture and from what I see coming it is a roaring flood of crazy leftism being unleashed in the media.
We don’t have one. Our answer needs to be national strikes, boycotts, and protests.
There should be a national strike to all of these America last people and policies. It should be held in Portsmouth, Ohio, because that’s the absolute example of the damage caused by Xiden and his voters.
Other protests should be at the Chinese Embassy.
Boy, the Vince Vaughn & Owen Wilson movie “The Internship” which took place at Google didn’t age well.
Until massive numbers of people avoid Gulag and the other big techs this will continue. We have to starve the beast. Unfortunately too many people with knowledge of their evil will financially support them for whatever reasons. Convenience, price, habit, others do it etc.
Attn: RSBN,
PLEASE POST YOUR VIDEO TO BITCHUTE !!!
After you post it, we can stage a BUYCOT.
Every conservative will pull up Bitchute; many for the first time.
IT IS TIME THAT GOOGLE / YOUTUBE IS NEUTERED.
You just cannot take control of this many voters and get away with it.
Yer we are watching Google from afar in Perth Western Australia, Corporations like leftists will eat their own audience as people move to other channels, Fascism, Communism will never win just line the pockets of scumbags whilst they get away with it. Just know Treepers are good.
The country was treated to 4+ years of Russia, Russia, Russia, but questioning this election is not OK.
Pretty telling who has control and how much they hate Trump.
I knew this was coming as I watched CPAC on RSBN.
What is wrong with these people?
Are they so fragile that they can’t allow a single dissenting opinion in public?
It just proves how weak, scared, and gutless they are.
We will continue speaking, come what may.
They think people will forget…. big mistake.
Trump IS becoming more powerful. He is no longer forced to deal with the Republican swamp and their “rules” and no longer needs to keep up any “appearances.” He can now speak his mind entirely.
This is why the GOPe had to let Mitch go. They wanted to attempt to appease the massive number of angry Republicans who are still registered and all of those who delisted themselves as Republican following the election steal. They want people to believe the core of the GOPe has somehow changed by getting rid of their turtle-man. We don’t believe you GOPe. There will have to be a LOT more exiting before we will have any sort of faith in you. In fact, you have to stop being in control before we will have any sort of faith in the party.
Meanwhile, Trump’s message is as popular as ever. The means of communication being cut off is their way of trying to starve that message. What they are doing is starving the masses hungering for Trump. This makes the masses “Hangry.”
In ordinary times, cutting off a person from being accessed by the people would result in the people forgetting about him. This isn’t the case with Trump because it’s not actually Trump. It’s what Trump can do and and what we all know we need him for. It’s Trump’s movement. There is no forgetting the fact that we need to save this country.
There is a reason Trump’s messaging is now about “SAVE AMERICA.”
The only thing I disagree with this logo is that the flag is white. I’m not going to wave a white flag. But love that Pence appears NO WHERE on that.
Yet people insist that we should keep the GOP? Where’s the representation?
Why is the GOP allowing Big Tech to do this?
Time for the American Party ?? before it’s too late!
Or reform the Republican Party, which already has an infrastructure. Consider both options. At the moment, President Trump is supporting reform of the GOP.
Trump’s intention (and it’s working) is to completely take over the Republican Party. I trust Trump and I see that it’s working. McConnell decided to exit… but that’s not enough. The weeds are not being pull out by the roots yet. But he’s not even close to done yet.
GOP is not going to risk big donors/sponsors from BIG tech on a matter that of course may cost them a political tenure in DC.
pay attention: the old standard objective to remain in office and “serve” the country has been rejected for the more prized object of getting in, getting paid, and then leaving.
to that end, we should all take notice as this plays out: we are literally seeing the old guard passing away. Pelosi, schumer, mcconnell, graham, warner, feinstein, durbin…and many many others. their hours are to end soon, to be replaced by a different caliber of criminal…one that looks at their models and says: we can achieve the established order in record time, well within a single legal term, and accomplish the goals of BIG TECH and other private interests.
the notion that a specific set of elected officials is required long term was never the goal of big interests.
long term tenure in office was only the goals and ambition of political actors paid to commit.
Things are going to change. And I would say, again, NOW IS THE TIME for all citizens to organize and begin to challenge recall laws in your own states. Eventually, we are all going to depend on these to reel in the predicted state of corruption in DC. There is every reason to believe congress will never stop being corrupt.
exhibit number 12,498,237: 1.9 trillion dollars of slush having NOTHING to do with covid!
We should not be surprised that those in power would seek to stay in power. This has gone on since the beginning of time and is in part facilitated by, rewards, punishment and the elites keeping the lower levels divided and in competition. What is surprising is the in your face temerity that we are seeing. It would suggest they have nothing to fear from those in power and that they feel they get to set their own rules.
Demoncraps are satanic. Come on… make it stick
Done.
It’s March 2021. Any conservative who still uses YouTube, the bully down the street who has said they WILL beat the crap out of you, has nothing to complain about. RSBN knows this. This won’t end until no one is using that product.
1st they came for Dr. Seuss — and I said nothing.
Then they came for Purple Pugassus — and I said nothing.
When they finally came for my Curious George Floyd coloring book, some Tranny with a badge, said I could keep it.
Rumor has it, the man in the yellow hat was looking in to Epstein’s blackmail of Billy Gates & Stephen Hawking. He had the sex tape and it was some weird wheelchair X-Games sh**. Last I heard, FBI leftists SWAT’ed him hard at 4 am…hasn’t been heard from since.
Google is CIA and not a private company