Twitter Censors Criticism of BLM Hypocrisy
What part of being a “trained Marxist” that cashes in on a lucrative contract with Warner Bros, a multinational for-profit corporation, is not hypocrisy? What part of being a Black Lives Matter activist buying a “compound” in one of the most exclusive white enclaves in America is not hypocrisy?
These things are, of course, explicitly hypocritical. Then again, most of what the Left in America does is hypocritical. How else can these supposedly grassroots militant movements be embraced by the most powerful corporations and wealthiest billionaires on earth? But don’t call them out on it. At the least, don’t do it on Twitter.
We’ll never know exactly why Twitter has blocked and deleted Tweets critical of BLM founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors purchase of a “secluded mini-compound tucked into L.A.’s rustic and semi-remote Topanga Canyon,” her fifth real estate acquisition in just the past year, because they’re blocked. Jason Whitlock who saw his Tweets erased and replaced with “This Tweet is no longer available,” actually had Twitter also temporarily suspend him from his account. The same thing happened to @ScoonTV.
What’s going on here? If Patrisse Khan-Cullors wants to ride the latest leftist/corporate psyop to riches, flaunting her hypocrisy and laughing all the way to the bank, that’s nothing new. Go ahead. But why is it that Twitter can permit relentless, often unfounded criticism of public figures on the Right, but is protective of a BLM executive, very much a public figure, whose actions at the least deserve to be exposed to the public?
Jonathan Turley, in his recent report on this latest proof of a double standard at work among the online communications monopolies, said it best:
“The greatest irony may not be the home purchase but the corporate support. A professed Marxist, Cullors has not only been paid handsomely by corporations like Warner but is being actively protected by corporations like Twitter. When it comes to free speech, I support Khan-Cullors and Whitlock. The question is whether both have an equal opportunity to speak.”
* * *