Three More Voices Silenced by Twitter

/1 Comment/in , /by

As reported in American Greatness, the New York Post, and elsewhere, on February 7, “the sanctimonious and hypocritical censors of Twitter came for Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, radio host Wayne Allyn Root, and freedom activist Pamela Geller.”

Geller can still be found on her own website, The Geller Report, on Facebook, as well as on YouTube and Instagram. But for how long?

Jim Hoft still has his website, The Gateway Pundit, and can still be found on Facebook, Instagram, and the durable Gab. Along with being banned from Twitter, Hoft’s Parler account went down with the platform. What’s next?

As for Wayne Allyn Root, he can still be found on Newsmax, as well as on his own website, along with Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn.

What were the thought crimes committed by these three? Apparently they are willing to “report and highlight the many irregularities and unanswered questions surrounding the 2020 presidential election.”

For that, they are banished from Twitter, and one may expect if they keep it up they’ll be banned from other platforms.

There’s no guarantee the truth, or, equally important, sincere dissent that may or may not be entirely accurate, will survive online. The crackdown has just begun. But “irregularities and unanswered questions” about the November presidential election are not going away. This recent Winston84 newsflash has links to some of the most informative, most suppressed analyses.

Anybody who has a strong opinion on the election, particularly if they’re convinced that fraud could not possibly have been a factor in the outcome, should read these reports. Maybe they don’t constitute proof, but at the least they identify areas where voter integrity must be restored, or it really won’t matter any more who runs for office in the future, or what voters want.

Meanwhile, we have Winston84 profiles for all three of Twitter’s latest victims, Pamela Geller, Wayne Allen Root, and Jim Hoft, where you can find links to the many platforms where they’re still active, as well as broken links to the platforms where they’ve been banned.

 *   *   *

“Absolute Proof” Stays Online Despite YouTube Ban

/1 Comment/in , /by

By now everyone knows Mike Lindell, the Pillow Guy, who made a name for himself and his company through his unwavering support for President Trump.

Lindell’s online presence is one of the latest casualties in an information war, waged not merely by online and offline media companies against conservative populists. As recounted with impressive detail in a recent article entitled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” published in Time Magazine, every institution in America is now in open war against conservative populists.

One of the latest forms of “dangerous misinformation” being overtly censored in America is anything that challenges the legitimacy of the recent presidential election. To anyone willing to peruse what’s left of alternative media, the level of hypocrisy and double standards at work is stunning, if not terrifying.

Being outspoken on matters concerning voter fraud is to commit what for Twitter is known as a violation of their “ban evasion policy.” Mike Lindell, as outspoken as they come, is no longer active on Twitter. Even his company’s Twitter account has been terminated.

Lindell’s biggest transgression to-date is to produce a lengthy documentary that aims to compile and summarize the principle sets of evidence of 2020 voter fraud across several swing states. The threat of massive lawsuits by the manufacturers of voting machines has kept reporting to a minimum, so if you want to know more about it, Lindell’s video is helpful. You won’t find it on YouTube, however, it was pulled down after a short-lived appearance on the platform that got millions of views.

Lindell’s video, entitled “Absolute Proof,” can be found, for now, on his website.

But he is not alone. Displayed below are some of the more well circulated links that offer additional information, or “misinformation,” depending on your point of view, on the recent presidential election. To suppress these perspectives, and all of them are being suppressed, is counterproductive. Much of what is asserted here may not be true, or may be exaggerated. But to deny them any reach is to deny them honest critical analysis. It legitimizes accusations that what is being suppressed is not dangerous because it is inflammatory, but because it is true.

Here are just a few arguments against a fair election:

Forensics report, Antrim County Michigan voting systems, Allied Security Operations Group.

Reports on election integrity, Epoch Times

5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms, The Federalist

How foreign intelligence agencies monitored the 2020 election, General Mike Flynn on Lou Dobbs Tonight.

“Joe cheated. Here’s proof.” – compilation by The Daily Deplorable.

Joe Biden’s Votes Violate Benford’s Law (Mathematics).

Report on election Fraud in Georgia, State Senator William Ligon, Summary of testimony from December 3, 2020 hearing.

“How Democratic and liberal groups used lawsuits to force states to water down voting rules” (video), Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal.

“The Immaculate Deception,” The Navarro Report, “Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities.”

What must be faced by anyone hoping to avoid further polarization is the fact that even if massive, orchestrated voter fraud did not occur, to say that all claims of any fraud, anywhere, are “baseless,” is a patronizing insult. Fraud, and elections orchestrated by powerful elites, are a fact of American history.

 *   *   *

Parler Is Still Dead

/in , /by

Of all the multiplying modes of online censorship displayed over the past four years, and especially over the past few months, two stand out: The deplatforming of a U.S. President by Twitter and Facebook, and the deplatforming of an entire platform, Parler, by Amazon Web Services.

Parler’s case illustrates the vacuous absurdity of the glib libertarian refrain “the free market will ensure free speech.” Content producers on YouTube are routinely deplatformed after finally becoming, after years of hard work, barely able to make a living. It is absurd to think these micro-players will just automatically rebuild their audiences and remonetize their work on some alternative platform. Even if they could rebuild their audience overnight, where can they go? YouTube controls 90 percent of the U.S. market. Ninety percent. Small producers aren’t going to build their own platform. And the alternative platforms they might migrate onto, all of them combined, only offer one-tenth as many viewers.

Yet Parler’s case is even harder. This company potentially has access to millions in additional financing, if not tens of millions, which they can invest in building a new platform that doesn’t depend on the global online hosting resources of Amazon. But with over ten million users and the potential to rapidly grow by at least one order of magnitude, only the biggest hosting services can accommodate Parler. That’s a small list, headed by Amazon, followed by Google Cloud, Alibaba, IBM, and Cloudflare. And barring a breakthrough that we would have heard about by now, none of them will do business with Parler.

Parler’s website has been reduced to a splash page, offering hopeful updates. The company’s initial expectation was they would be back up in a few weeks. That didn’t happen. Then, only a few days ago, co-owner Dan Bongino told Fox News that Parler would be back up by February 8. They’re not.

A Big Tech media mouthpiece, Fast Company, recently published an article that describes the technical challenges facing Parler. Quoting from the article:

“If Parler didn’t want to risk being dropped by another web host, it could alternatively set up its own in-house servers. That’s what the far-right social network Gab did after getting dropped by its hosting provider, Joyent, in 2018. After relying on a different host for the following two years, Gab announced last September that it had built its own infrastructure instead. But going that route is even more burdensome than relying on a smaller host. Again, Parler would have to work out all of the areas where its code expects to hook into Amazon Web Services in particular, and it would have to rebuild many of the tools that Amazon had provided as part of its service. On top of all that, Parler would have to pay for the actual servers, wait for them to arrive, and employ enough engineers to actually configure them.”

If technical challenges weren’t enough, there have also been management shakeups, with Parler’s CEO and co-founder John Matze terminated on January 30 by the company’s board of directors.

If Parler reappears anytime soon, it will be against all odds. Don’t hold your breath.

 *   *   *

Black Conservatives Vie to Replace California’s Governor Newsom

/1 Comment/in , /by

Anyone who thinks the conservative movement isn’t inclusive is not paying attention. When it comes to candidates conservatives will support, the only thing that matters is the ideas and principles they’ll fight for. Two young black conservatives who are running for California governor exemplify this fact, because the ideas they’re promoting are as interesting, if not more interesting, than anything coming from their more established conservative competitors.

Errol Webber, a 34 year old immigrant from Jamaica, now living in Los Angeles, has been producing documentary and narrative films since he was a teenager. His acclaimed documentary “American Promise” chronicles the struggles parents go through to assert their right to school choice for their children.

Webber’s positions on the issues are staunchly conservative, including supporting school choice, defending “religious, medical and economic freedoms,” investing in vocational education, increasing competition in medicine and reducing taxes and regulations.

Major Williams, a 41 year old resident of Pasadena, made a name for himself in 2020 by running for mayor of that city. He came in third place with 8.4 percent and forced the top candidates into a runoff. His gubernatorial campaign website reveals a candidate that has the courage to take positions that more established candidates would never dare.

In particular, Williams calls for expanding California’s oil and gas drilling in order to increase tax revenues, create high paying jobs, and – crucially – offset California’s hypocritical and damaging reliance on foreign oil, much of it imported from Venezuela. Williams is a budget hawk, a supporter of the 2nd amendment, and favors deregulation. His positions on the issues are bold, thoughtful, and thoroughly conservative.

If proponents of the Newsom recall succeed in forcing a special election, expect to see Williams and Webber’s names on the ballot. Their campaigns are going to surprise a lot of people, because they both have reach on social media. Williams has 43,000 followers on Facebook, over 172,000 on Instagram. Webber has nearly 129,000 followers on Twitter.

California’s conservatives can learn a lot from these candidates. For starters, the courage to take positions that are right for California, even if they’re wrong for the special interests that run California. We wish both of them well.

 *   *   *

Twitter’s War on Christians

/in , /by

The way Twitter in particular, and progressives in general, have escalated their war on Christians should concern every American regardless of their faith. For their pro-life and pro-family beliefs, Christians have been relentlessly attacked for decades by progressives. Now the war has been extended to what Christians are allowed to say about transsexuals.

Nobody denies that someone with genuine gender dysphoria deserves compassion and respect. But Twitter and other tech platforms are censoring and deplatforming so-called “transition skeptics,” which denies reach to a vital perspective that must be heard. The politically approved version of the transsexual lobby has become so powerful that President Biden has issued an executive order requiring school sports to allow biological men who identify as women to participate in women’s athletic competitions.

And this term, “biological men,” or some version therein, is now considered “hate speech.”

As reported by the Christian Post, “Twitter suspends Christian magazine for saying Biden’s trans nominee is a man, not a woman.”

Apparently, per the inviolable rules set forth by the politically approved trans lobby, the specific violation was to publish the following words: “Biden’s nominee for assistant secretary of health, Rachel Levine, is a transgender woman, that is, a man who believes he is a woman.”

According to Twitter, this is “hateful conduct.” In their message to the offending magazine, the Colorado Springs based Daily Citizen, Twitter wrote “your account, @FocusCitizen has been locked for violating the Twitter Rules. Specifically for: Violating our rules against hateful conduct. You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

As written, apparently “hateful conduct” is a violation based on any words that may “promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

There’s so much wrong with Twitter’s rule it’s hard to know where to begin. The newly established notion that words equate to violence, or that making claims that people may disagree with or find offensive constitutes threats or harassment. Or, of course, to state the obvious, that it is unacceptable to question the agenda of the politically approved trans lobby.

Maybe it’s worth helping young people question the mounting peer pressure to engage in irreversible medical procedures to “confirm” their gender identity. Maybe it’s worth while to oppose activist parents imposing these procedures on very young children. Maybe it’s not fair to allow young men with demonstrably bigger bones and muscles to suddenly “transition” and compete against biological women for sports scholarships. And for people of faith, maybe it is nobody’s right to tell them what to believe, or to call their free speech “hate speech” in order to shut them up.

The progressive trans lobby has become almost unopposed, from Twitter to the White House. That’s wrong. To oppose their agenda is not merely to question, with integrity, the specific arguments and agenda of the trans lobby, it is also part of a growing obligation to stand up to all of the mushrooming array of politically correct mandates. Because they are tyrannical and if they are not opposed we will lose whatever freedom we have left.

We conclude by calling attention to a recent Tweet posted by Tampax US. They wrote the following: “Fact: Not all women have periods. Also a fact: Not all people with periods are women. Let’s celebrate the diversity of all people who bleed.”

This is offensive nonsense. This is patronizing, phony, dishonest nonsense, designed to placate a small minority of fanatic activists. That would be laughable except the larger agenda that empowers these activists and others like them is dark and sinister, if not downright evil: They are trying to force us to believe things that run contrary to everything we can objectively observe. They are trying to make us say dark is light, that one plus one is three, that there are five lights when only four lights appear.

Christian patriots are among the only people left in America who refuse to back down to this onslaught of tyranny hiding within absurdity. And it is not an attack on any transsexual to say so. They deserve our respect. But not our dishonesty.

 *   *   *

Antifa Drives Andy Ngo Into Exile – Mainstream Press Silent

/in , /by

If there is anyone in America who should NOT be silenced, or ignored, it is Andy Ngo. This soft spoken, level-headed, and courageous journalist has tirelessly exposed both the relentless violence of Antifa as well as the appalling negligence of civic authorities to crack down on the violence.

For his trouble, Ngo has been maligned by Rolling Stone as a “right-wing troll,” and by Vox as a “far right sympathizer.” Yielding to the same organized intimidation that prevents city councils from prosecuting Antifa violence, Ngo has been thrown off Pay Pal and Instagram. In Ngo’s home city of Portland, the landmark independent bookstore, Powells, has announced they will not stock his forthcoming book. And now, Ngo, a gay immigrant born in Vietnam, has been driven out of his adopted nation.

Ngo has already been a victim of political violence, in a June 29, 2019 attack by an Antifa mob that the leftist press somehow spun as something he brought upon himself. Their reasoning seemed to rest on the assumption that because Ngo was “biased against Antifa,” he had it coming. But Ngo’s videos speak for themselves.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2020, visitors to Ngo’s Twitter feed were treated to irrefutable evidence of the violence convulsing the nation, violence that was dismissed by the press as “mostly peaceful.” This violence is ongoing, and in nearly every case, Antifa has been the main instigator. And again and again and again and again, Ngo not only posted videos of the violence, but mug shots of the few perpetrators that would be arrested. And in nearly every case, they were immediately bailed out and charges were dropped.

No wonder Andy Ngo had to flee for his life. As he explained earlier this week on Sky News, Ngo, now in London, said “For a number of months now, there’s just been increasing threats of violence against me, promises by Antifa extremists to kill me. And all of those threats were reported to authorities, and even when I provided names of some of the suspects, nothing was done.”

Nothing was done. This is how people doing genuine investigative work are treated in America today. Ignored by the mainstream media, demonized by the more extreme leftist media, and left to fend for themselves by the authorities.

There is a pattern to this, because Antifa violence never had to spiral out of control in 2020 and engulf half the major cities in America. It was tolerated and even encouraged. And in many cases, the city councils that could have done something about it were too intimidated by Antifa mobs following them to their homes and threatening them.

When ridiculous corporate stooges like ABC Nightly “News” anchor David Muir gravely warn their gullible audiences about the threat from the “right wing,” they know what they’re doing. They’re willfully ignoring a trained army on the Left that has been extremely useful.

Andy Ngo is an American hero. We can only hope his work will continue, and that he will stay safe.

 *   *   *

Communication Monopolies Broaden Censorship Tactics

/in , /by

Will browsers start censoring content?

Major platforms cancelling individual accounts is old news – that’s a steadily escalating crackdown that’s been going on since 2016. It now extends into silencing dissenting views on elections, race, gender, medicine, and anything they call “Q.” Expect climate “deniers” to be next.

Meanwhile, throttling down channels, killing their comments sections, or simply obliterating them, is not enough. The censorship tactics have moved well beyond that, and now extend into denying objectionable voices access to online financial services.

In a major escalation, the major hosts have even destroyed entire platforms, starting when WordPress deplatformed Conservative Treehouse, and going to a whole new level when Amazon deplatformed Parler. But this war is just getting started.

As many people are driven back to the major platforms, the “rules and policies” governing speech are being tightened further, as “misinformation” becomes a new criteria for silencing people. Twitter’s new guidelines threaten censorship for speech that is “manipulated,” “deceptive,” or likely to “impact public safety.” On the surface, none of these criteria sound unreasonable, which is why they are so dangerous. They are entirely arbitrary.

Exploiting these arbitrary guidelines are complaint mobs, organized and funded by left-wing activist groups. They launch coordinated, high-volume complaints on targeted social media accounts, and knock them off, one after another.

These guidelines and these pressure groups are also attempting to convert those alternative media platforms to the same expansive and arbitrary rules and policies restricting speech that have been adopted by sites like Twitter. Responding to this intimidation, platforms like DLive have recently canceled the accounts of content creators who had migrated there after being thrown off YouTube.

This is full spectrum warfare on free speech, and it gets worse. The cancel mobs are putting pressure on Podcasts, a mode of expression that is difficult to monitor because it is audio only and the material is usually broadcast in long-form segments. The war on free speech now extends as well to book publishers, as evidenced by this appalling letter from “publishing professionals” demanding publishers reject book deals with anyone who ever worked for President Trump.

And should anyone doubt the high-tech oligarchs aren’t willing and able to root out free speech they don’t think should be free, by any means necessary, consider these recent comments by Marc Andreesen, the man who founded Netscape (remember Netscape?), and who is now a well-heeled Silicon Valley venture capitalist:

“Marc Andreessen believes a new wave of content blocking could come from internet service providers, browser makers and email operators.” Don’t doubt this. Mail Chimp and Mail Lite are actively cancelling conservative accounts. ISPs have blocked websites and could easily become more aggressive. And as for browsers, or even ICANN, why not?

This is going to be a long and exhausting war. Big tech really ought to back off. By suppressing dissent, they are fanning the flames of extremism, not putting them out.

 *   *   *

 

Vincent James O’Connor Banned From DLive

/1 Comment/in , /by

It isn’t easy to monitor everything Vincent James O’Connor has ever said or written online. Since 2015 he has been a prolific creator of online content, with an output that includes three hour live video segments, streamed multiple times each week.

So maybe Vincent James O’Connor has said something absolutely horrible, something so vile that even those of us who defend his right to free speech would be hesitant to defend him. That’s not likely, though, because despite being on the predictable leftist hit lists for years, YouTube didn’t kick him off their platform until a few months ago. He discussed all of this on a video he recently posted to BitChute.

Demonetized by YouTube along with Steven Crowder and dozens of others in June 2019, O’Connor started placing 3rd party ads on his own. It wasn’t until August of 2020 that YouTube cancelled O’Connor’s “Red Elephants” channel altogether. No strikes. No warning. No reason provided.

Meanwhile, O’Connor had begun streaming on DLive, a relatively new platform that welcomed everyone. Five days a week, three hours per day, for nearly a year, O’Connor was broadcasting on DLive, putting in the same volume of work as major talk radio hosts. And by doing this, this man whose political opinions have made him unemployable in most professions was able support his family.

But no more. All too aware of what happened to Parler, shortly after the events of January 6, management at DLive banned O’Connor from their platform. The people banned along with O’Connor had some of the biggest audiences on DLive, including Nick Fuentes, Patrick Casey, Ethan Ralph, Patrick , Steve Franzen, Salty Cracker, Jake Lloyd, and many others.

Coping with being thrown off two platforms where he’d placed his biggest bets, O’Connor has now made his primary home a new platform Trovo.live/VincentJames. For financial support Vincent James O’Connor’s Red Elephants relies on viewers going either to SubscribeStar or using Bitcoin. He cannot be supported via CashApp, PayPal, Venmo, GooglePay, or Apple Pay, because they’ve all banned him. For that matter, O’Connor has also been banned by Airbnb, Uber, Uber Eats, Vrbo and others.

There are at least two things signified by what’s happened to O’Connor. First, if you become a target of the left and the censors, they won’t stop at pushing you off platforms. Your banishment will extend to a full spectrum of online services including payment processors, transportation, and lodging.

Second, and more generally, the censorship in America has advanced beyond silencing individual voices like Vincent James O’Connor, and has now moved to silencing entire platforms. Parler is gone and may or may not come back. DLive has been kneecapped. Telegram is coming under siege, and not surprising at all, a front in this battle is Apple, which is being sued by someone alleging “emotional distress” based on Telegram’s presence in Apple’s App Store. And Gab, not dependent on 3rd party servers, is overwhelmed with traffic and faces a tough challenge: How will they make enough money to expand, if every bank, major hosting vendor or ISP, and possibly even ICANN is determined to see them fail. How will any of them?

If Vincent James O’Connor has said anything, ever, to justify this sort of censorship, then YouTube ought to be willing to provide the evidence. The same goes for every single case of censorship. The Left in the United States, backed up by a frightening array of corporate and federal power, has nearly succeeded is eliminating not “hate speech,” but speech they hate. This must stop.

 *   *   *

Censorship Movement Turns to the “Loophole” of Podcasts

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Associated Press, always a reliable source of establishment policy messaging, has a new target for the censors: Podcasts. An article released by AP on January 15 entitled “Extremists exploit a loophole in social moderation: Podcasts,” posted on countless news websites, expresses frustration that the censors can’t easily get at podcasts.

This doesn’t mean podcasters are invulnerable. Most podcasts rely on only three companies to gain exposure, if not the actual platform, for their podcasts: Apple, Spotify and Google. And these companies are coming under increasing pressure to censor podcasters. A spokesperson for the Anti Defamation League is quoted in the article:

“Podcasts filled with hatred and incitement to violence should not be treated any differently than any other content. If you’re going to take a strong stance against hate and extremism in the platform in any way, it should be all-inclusive.”

The difficulty with monitoring podcasts is their long form and audio format makes it hard to identify brief episodes of “misinformation” (or whatever) that could be buried within hours of otherwise innocuous content. But speech recognition algorithms are fast approaching the level where that barrier goes away. In the meantime, orchestrated complaints, a word from groups like the ADL, or even just an inquiry from the Associated Press can cause a podcast to get cancelled.

A few days earlier, on January 12, the Podcast Business Journal ran an article entitled “Censorship Abounds. Should Podcasters Be Worried?” Taking the form of an interview with “the podcasting industry’s favorite attorney for answers,” the responses were not encouraging.

The interview led off with the same “it’s a private company” nonsense we’re still hearing from brain dead libertarian purists. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Apple dominate their markets. Rather than break them up (which would be justifiable under anti-trust law), and rather than take away their Section 230 exemption, just require them to adhere to Section 230! That would mean if these platforms want to keep the exemption, they can’t ban anything that’s not violating the First Amendment.

This expert attorney then makes an astonishingly naive claim: “I don’t think podcasters need to be ‘careful’ about anything but being truthful and presenting things fairly. It’s OK to have an opinion, even an unpopular one, but to clothe it in language of fact is deceit, and shouldn’t be tolerated.”

He is missing the big picture entirely. Requiring honest “facts” and prohibiting anything that is “intentionally misleading” as a condition of avoiding censorship is a slippery slope. Who decides what is factual? Who decides whether someone was just wrong, or was intentionally misleading? Do people have a right to be wrong? One would hope so. If this becomes accepted practice, how many topics will become priorities for “factchecker” censors? Shall we be censored if we disagree over climate change, or systemic racism? The election fraud issue is just a wedge.

One note of balance in the AP article, something that unfortunately won’t get much traction, is their quote from Jillian York, an expert at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who said “the [censorship] tide is against the speech of right-wing extremists … but tomorrow the tide might be against opposition activists.”

 *   *   *

American Thinker Disables Comments Section

/1 Comment/in , /by

Reading comments on websites is kind of like watching fringe channels that traffic in conspiracy theories. There’s a lot to wade through that is at best a waste of time, but if you persevere you will eventually find information of great interest that cannot be found anywhere else.

If you want to control what people see and what people learn, that is a threat. Comments must go.

This is why back in June 2020 The Federalist was forced to disable its comments section in order to keep Google ads. At the same time, Google banned ZeroHedge outright, taking away their ad revenue, alleging “racist” comments on the website. The following month, Yahoo News “temporarily” disabled its comments section.

Each of these incidents had one thing in common: comments posted introduced readers to information that was inconvenient. In Yahoo’s case, comments leaned conservative, and almost always exposed the article’s lies, omissions, distortions, and bias. Six months later, Yahoo’s temporary ban is still in force.

Now another right-of-center online source of news and analysis, American Thinker, has also disabled its comments section. In a post on January 14, the editor wrote: “It is news to almost nobody who reads American Thinker that a political witch hunt is underway. Parties in and out of government are looking for excuses to suppress and destroy voices that oppose the left. Because AT lacks the ability to monitor comments in real time, and because our position that comments are a forum, not something we publish, is being called into question, we can no longer publish comments.”

It is true that comments are often offensive. But how the tech companies that enable hosting and ad revenue choose which websites to intimidate is selective, either driven by leftwing bias within companies like Google and Amazon, or driven by complaint mobs that the Left is very good at organizing and targeting. If you have any doubt that enforcement is selective, just read the comments on DailyKos articles. For that matter, read the comments on Washington Post articles. They don’t hold back. They don’t get banned, either.

Ultimately what the establishment fears is open forums that lead to shifts in what is “acceptable political discourse.” An article published in July 2019 by the BBC made the establishment position embarrassingly plain on the threat represented by right-of-center narratives, writing that “The more mainstream these narratives become, the greater the tension will be over whether they really are extreme or whether they represent acceptable political discourse, and the views of a substantial number of real people.”

Comments on websites, like posts and videos, are protected speech. Just as platforms where people add posts and videos enjoy Section 230 immunity from liability for the content of those posts and videos, the website forums where comments are made are entitled to the same immunity. Unfortunately, big tech and their mobs of online warriors are seeing to it these forums are shut down anyway, one by one.

This is yet another front in the battle to preserve online free speech. Perhaps at the least, the Right needs to organize its own complaint mobs!

 *   *   *