Some of you have asked about why Berenson v. Twitter matters and why I am spending time on it instead of focusing on vaccines, mandates, and other news.
I promise a full answer soon.
But here’s part of the reason. Here’s how the world’s most important platform for journalism ACTUALLY sees itself, its rights, and its obligations to permit free speech.
The following transcript is from a hearing in the Superior Court of San Francisco in June 2018 on a case called Taylor v. Twitter. Six months before, Twitter had barred a white supremacist named Jared Taylor (can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion).
Taylor filed a complaint in California state court. Among other claims, he alleged unfair competition - that Twitter’s terms of service were unconscionable and its business practices fraudulent because it promised users the opportunity to speak freely but did not.
To the obvious surprise of Twitter’s attorneys, Judge Harold E. Kahn showed sympathy to Taylor’s arguments (as opposed to sympathy to Taylor and his views - which is, or at least used to be, the point of having freedom of speech).
At the hearing, Kahn put Twitter’s lawyers to the test. Could Twitter ban gay people, or women, or African-Americans, if it chose?
KAHN: Does Twitter have the right to take somebody off its platform if -- it does so because it doesn't like the fact that the person is a woman? Or gay? Or would be in violation of Title 7? Or would be in violation of the age discrimination laws, or the disability discrimination laws?
Kahn was so certain the question had only one response that he actually answered it himself:
Of course not.
—
But after a short back-and-forth, Twitter’s lawyer Patrick Carome told the judge he was wrong.
Twitter might call itself a “public square” - as Jack Dorsey would say under oath in Congressional testimony three months later. In reality it had every right to ban a black person, or a woman, or anyone else it liked, for any reason, or no reason at all.
CAROME: And, in fact, as to Your Honor's question about could a First Amendment speaker choose by gender, or age, or something like that, in fact -- I mean Twitter would never, ever, ever do that; it's totally contrary to everything it does… [But] does the First Amendment provide that protection? Absolutely it does.
Okay then.
Carome is no first-year associate who misspoke under pressure. His biography describes him as "the nation’s preeminent advocate in litigation concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that shields operators of online platforms from liability pertaining to publishing third-party content.” He is one of the lawyers helping defend Twitter from Donald Trump’s lawsuit against it.
By the way: After Judge Kahn allowed Taylor to pursue his claim of unfair competition, Twitter was so frightened about what might happen next that it appealed directly to the California Supreme Court - which then, without allowing Taylor’s attorneys to present arguments, issued a six-page ruling telling Kahn to reverse his ruling and dismiss the case.
True story.
Added bonus: Twitter argues that allowing me to make factually accurate tweets about Covid might upset the community, or something.
Meanwhile, right now on Twitter, you can watch a woman in New York get her head crushed by an SUV, as almost 600,000 people have in the last two days. (Be careful with this, it is awful.)
I don't have a twitter account and I never will but if all the true Americans deleted their Twitter account all social media platforms would get the message
I have not and probably will not delete my Twitter account. Twitter in many instances serves very useful purposes. The other day I was alerted to a wonderful discussion between Sebastian Rushworth and Christine Stabell Benn on Dr Benn's Twitter feed.
My hope is that Alex's lawsuit will force Twitter to be the Twitter it claimed it intended to be and restore the full value of its platform.
1. if you have a link to a Twitter post (like from an article or Twitchy), you can open that. But it's even better to open that in a Private Window (I use Brave Browser, and suggest you do too) (you can also do an Incognito window in Chrome). This way, you'll get a lot farther before Twitter "stops" you to force you to log in.
2. something I have not used yet is called https://nitter.net/. Just another way to see Twitter without an account.
The key is not deleting for good, rather en masse, as part of a concerted protest. For a day, to weeks.
Let the market show them who is master!
That said, I'm not a member of Twitter.. only lately (last two years) I've used it on Google search to see AB's, GVBs, Malone's and and the 'other good guys' various science grabs and warning posts).
AB getting kicked off of Twitter led me to Substack.
I must say, I prefer Substack blogs and news articles more than any other platform!!!
Thank you, no need for Twitter much (except as screen shots in Substack posts).
I'm a bit cheap subscription wise, being in tourism and having had my livelyhood and freedoms eroded and destroyed for the last two years ongoing...though I share mercilessly !
exactly what i was going to say. everyone who supports freedom of speech should get off of twitter. now. i won't read mr berensons tweets if he is allowed back on twitter on principle. i do not want my 'clicks' to enrich such an underhanded, subversive company.
TBH, all the true proponents of free speech already have (unless, like me, they were already banned and can't even log in). The chatter you see on Twitter is between Leftists and bots/paid posters.
It has been remarkable how Sen Paul gets immediately attacked whenever he posts. The bots arrive to flood the zone, Back in Usenet forum days where content space was limited, that was called pushing a poster out. On Twitter it results in tedious scrolling to see what comments might be real.
I'm deleting my account which was made in 2012, I read your post and just thought that it was a good idea as a statement, I'm not american but we share the same values.
I deleted mine Jan 2021 as well. I think we are all fighting for the same thing. Our belief in certain UNALIENABLE rights? Twitter is an example of the opposite, per this post of Alex's, and I think he's made a decent point. Even though you and I and many others don't have an account there, could we acknowledge that enough activity still seems to happen there that it's relevant? Particularly the de-platforming of an American President.
Guilty as charged. I read Cernovich's feed multiple times a day.
He said over and over that young men (his audience) should get the vaccine to keep their jobs to provide for their families. I called him out on this several times. I was probably rude on my last one because he blocked me.
Best thing to ever happen to me. Twitter no longer has any appeal.
His feed was great except for that California vax pass garbage. I think he's probably J and J vaxxed, so he didn't get the point of resisting for our children and their future.
I actual have only an existence there so I can see what garbage is being spewed. It’s strictly for observation purposes so I can stay in the loop of all views. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer—kind-of-thinking for me. The TV went off 15 years ago, though, and that gave me an excellent advantage in keeping my mind clear to see through the smoke and mirrors.
Sadly, that made me laugh. But it’s so true. I want to, but I can’t break away. I built several amazing lists to follow. It takes months to build without “trains”. I don’t get as much hate now, it’s weird. I’m sure they’ve found a way to make me invisible or something.
what is that group, where the hell are they now two years later after this relentless assault on this country, and, per that they haven't deleted Twitter, and most of our politicians use it to maintain contact with the public, what the F does that say about our "representation"?!
My God, when the hell do people realize the adage "deeds not words define us" means what we do is what we are!?...
Twitter is their sixth grade lunch room table, and they are all jockeying to be one of the cool kid "Mean Girls".
I remember a Caitlin Flanagan piece on how she was trying to quit Twitter with the help of her son. It was like Intervention. She said she had a compelling desire to get back on and talk shit about Naomi Klein, hahahahahahaa...
Alex is like Twitter Joker.
Fuck, that's good, Sage. I'm gonna write a post about this right now!
I haven't deleted my account, however haven't been on in over a year. My account serves me one purpose. I will log back on in October to eliminate candidates. Any candidate running on free speech and other pro constitution, bill of rights platform will be considered a liar from the word 'GO' in my eyes if they're campaigning on Twitter. Yes, Matt Gaetz too. I'll skip that box because their not authentic.
Wait, you can?? I have a bare bones one I made years ago and I keep it so I can watch the other side and see what’s being said. I can delete it and still be able to follow links? If that’s the case, it’s going down!
Twitter just banned DefiantL's for no apparent reason other than they keep track of Leftist hypocrisy through screenshots of an old tweet right above a new tweet where the Leftist has done a 180 degree turn...
George Betsios , I have never had one either and agree people should rise up and delete their accounts, but they won’t it’s called mass psychosis on a different level.
IMHO, there are two fundamentally different issues in play here.
1) Does Twitter have the right to be arbitrary and capricious with respect to who it allows on it's platform?
2) How and to what extent are public officials (from the White House on down) putting pressure on Twitter to de-platform certain voices?
I'm only tangentially interested in #1, but am keenly interested in #2. I don't believe for a moment that the tech giants are operating in a vacuum. I believe they are operating in an environment of "official pressure". I believe the government (at multiple levels) is plainly violating the First Amendment by outsourcing their censorship to nominally private companies.
I do recall Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai describing his experience fighting big tech and how he discovered that some of these guys (Twitter maybe?) had a place where government officials could enter and essentially give instructions on who had to be deleted, etc. I do not remember the specifics, I think he was explaining this during the Mike Lindell symposium in August. They really are not doing it on their own, they are government agents.
Another argument for the total restructuring of what a Public Servant is allowed to do. They work for US--not the other way around. And they are about to be reminded of that fact in a bigly way
It is called a “trusted Twitter partnership.” In Shiva’s case the state of MA gave twtr the order to shutdown his account when he pressed the question of access to the ballet images that must be kept by law.
He sued on 1A grounds but it got too hot for the judge who eventually bowed to twtr and ordered the case sealed.
There was a court decision a few years back declaring that Twitter was indeed a public square, and as such, Donald Trump could not block followers. Thus, legally, our courts have answered on #1, but in the age of COVID, what the heck does law or precedent have to do with anything?
I am more interested in #2 as well, of course, but #1 is important in the argument as to whether Twitter deserves Section 230 protection -- are they a publisher or a platform. If they are a publisher there is one set of rules but they claim they are not because they want liability protection; so if they are a platform, they should not be engaging in editorial discrimination (such as a newspaper may have the right to do -- choosing what to publishing within it's pages.)
I agree, these two issues are definitely distinct. My interest to date has skewed heavily towards the second. However, as tempting as it might be to view the first as simply a matter of petty personal disputes governed primarily by boring old contract law, I believe it is actually way more interesting than that. For one thing, California's regulation of message carriers as so-called "common carriers" required to "serve all comers" highlights the tension that has always existed between "free enterprise" and those private contractual relationships considered important enough to society that government must regulate them. At least with those kinds of matters, government involvement is out in the open and we can talk about how much regulation is warranted. Not so when government misleads or is not fully transparent with the public as to the extent of its involvement - for example, when a White House spokesperson talks about conversations government has with its "trusted partners" in Big Tech who NEVERTHELESS, she says, make their OWN decisions about all matters involving speech. And any attempt to call BS on THAT is met immediately with gaslighting, shutting down any real conversation. So the second issue is definitely the more explosive, but I really like the juxtaposition of the two. Thanks for your comment!
Twitter just banned DefiantL's for no apparent reason other than your #1 and the fact they keep track of Leftist hypocrisy through screenshots of an old tweet right above a new tweet where the Leftist has done a 180 degree turn...
Why should Twitter be subject to public accommodations law? No businesses over the past two years had any trouble barring me from entering their premises based on my religious conviction against wearing a fascist political symbol over my face.
if you don't want us to argue over the irrelevant point of whether or not jared taylor is a white supremacist, maybe don't unnecessarily insult him by calling him a white supremacist.
“ can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion).”
Why bring it up then? I don’t know one way or the other but labeling just is asking for discussion. Maybe say allegedly or “twitter claimed”? Hopefully he isn’t.
It actually MAY be slightly relevant. Too. I suspect Taylor was banned for his conclusions that there are differences in races. And I suspect he concludes they are not good leaders or may not be as smart. That is true of horse breeds, dog breeds and groups of people excel at some things and not others. Some of which is obviously true. Where people become racists is when they assume individuals fit any stereotype. So these conclusions are not now tolerated. Like people would now be banned for saying there are differences in SEXES--they'be be banned and called haters and transphobes. Or like Alex that even though what he posted was true, he MISLED his audience into a conclusion unacceptable. Perhaps censorship is the ONLY point, but this has become a culture war and Taylor MAY be a victim of it as is Alex. (I haven't studied Taylor enough to defend him; I'm just commenting on these issues generally). Mostly it annoys me Alex calls him a white supremacist and then forbids anyone to challenge that when he's advocating for free speech. I assume he won't kick us off for arguing, but Alex is a bit full of himself at times (like talking to Dr. Malone as he did). Still, I know he has integrity, and I would also look into anything Alex claimed as a journalist.
Yeah, Alex is basically right that the judge was sympathizing with Taylor's RIGHTS, not agreeing with him. And that's true. But this culture war is important because the next judge won't do that. It's clear we are allowed to reach CERTAIN conclusions now. Yet it's relevant some because these culture warriors are going after anyone who doesn't fit the new woke ideology. That encompasses a lot of people now. So someone like Taylor (and even Alex) are targets.
Well, I see the POINT you are making and is valid of course, and we have long supported you, but YOU called Taylor a "white supremacist" yourself so that invites debate over it. Don't do that and then forbid anyone to argue with you! Prompted me to research the guy some. He MIGHT be, I'd have to look more carefully (but the REASOn they say he is right off the bat I saw --that he says there are differences between races, health differences and more --just like dog breeds--does not make him one. If I find he thinks one is SUPERIOR to another, then I will agree with you). Not the point here, whether he is one or not. I agree. It's how you said this that is the point! If you didn't want anyone to argue over it, you should have phrased that differently. Such as "he has been called or known as." And you could have qualified that more with "possibly with good reason." But you didn't. So I would imagine you might get someone taking exception to it possibly. So you probably brought that on yourself. You sometimes speak without thinking, it seems.
"can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion" Then why call him an incendiary name that's used 100% of the time to cast people as heretics? It's the race version of "anti-vaxxer."
One could rewrite "a white supremacist named Jared Taylor (can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion)" succinctly as "an alleged white supremacist named Jared Taylor".
I don't think "alleged" makes it better. For example: "Alleged anti-vaxxer Alex Berenson." Both "anti-vaxxer" and "white supremacist" are terms to cast people as heretics so their views or arguments can be dismissed without debate.
Fair point, perhaps "so-called" would be better, since it's connotation is "probably inappropriately alleged". Nevertheless, you're right that "racist" and "anti-vaxxer" are toxic terms nowadays.
In a world that allows financial institutions to close your accounts and ban you because of what you stand for, that shuts down businesses for any reason at all, that forces experimental injections on its citizens, even after it knows it is killing hundreds of thousands, that takes away parents rights to make decisions over their children's education and health, that makes it illegal and punishable by imprisonment to speak against the government or its captured institutions, is more than likely to let a company like Twitter cancel speech as it sees fit. In fact, that is even better -----getting "private" industry to do its dirty work.
I love that you're fighting it and you have to do it regardless, but I will be shocked if you win. Another poster is right. The only way to fight back is to cancel Twitter. Get off.
We are still playing nice and they are playing smash mouth. Stalinist dictators always do. The sooner we get into war mode the better (my problem is that I was a history major). Tyrants realize that when they push far enough there will be bloodshed. Vietnam turned when the blood of four students flowed on the ground at Kent State. Trudeau has declared martial law, but so far the citizenry has responded with bouncy castles. So we have the threat of violence by the state on one side with the other side clinging to the belief they somehow have rights they no longer have. That those rights can still be defended by the laws of the land. But those days are long gone; that was a previous land. That was the LAST war. In THIS war tyrants must clearly understand the point at which they will end up in the back garden of the palace full of lead. So no, not at all: the "only" way to fight back is NOT just to delete an app. Think Lexington and Concord, not sipping lattes and logging into different apps. Nobody is "for" violence, but when the state threatens and then uses maximum violence humanity must choose submission and disgrace and death, or matching like for like. Recall: we have RIGHT on our side, and there are 7.1 billion of US versus about 20,000 of THEM. Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive...
I agree with you completely. There is that moment in time where we realize what we just began fearing/fighting has already occurred. It is sinking it more every day and because of alt media, more people are understanding. But as I sit here, I am pretty sure that 90% of the population has ZERO idea what is going on. A great deal of that 90% thinks you are the enemy.
That is not to say I was suggesting that your cancelling your Twitter account would right everything. Did you really think I thought deleting Twitter while sipping my latte would solve the world's problems or were you just taking out your stress on my comment? Obviously, the idea of making Twitter obsolete just solves the Problem Of Twitter.
I am sure you are correct that violence is inevitable. They know that too and will planned (have planned) accordingly.
And yes, there are billions of us.....but it's not that simple. When you have enormous power over law, militaries and media, and trillions of dollars that have ALREADY made certain that medical, financial, education and private corporate entities have been captured, you hog tie a percentage of people of the already small percentage that get it. (This from another Substack I read today: "Now that all the money has been stolen and liabilities are left on you and me (Note 100% of the financial liabilities remain, giving the existing powers the right to seize all of our assets to satisfy them ), switching to digital systems that are inherently deflating will continue to consolidate wealth into the hands of the people who stole the money, and who can still print money, which gives them near-total physical and digital control.)
Sitting in my comfortable home while the electricity still works and the water still runs, grocery stores stocked and a fat paycheck every 2 weeks makes a call to arms next to impossible.
I am an old hippie, and we stopped a war, threw out a crook president, and completely changed the society. But hippies always said that the first step was to raise people's consciousnesses. It is long past due time that the rhetoric of that consciousness raising is suitable for these times: this is WAR. We live in a world where governments use both force and coercion to mandate the injection of deadly experimental poisons for the profit of their billionaire friends and owners. So if not now, When? If not us, Who? The last remaining question is How? We MUST capture the appropriate rhetorical ground and begin the slow process of turning citizens back into warriors. Back in the day that was easier, with images like a naked 9 year Vietnamese girl, napalmed by U.S. bombs, and fallen student/warriors at Kent State. So today we must begin to SHOCK people out of their lethargy and resignation and complacency. Live free or die. Sorry I was scrappy but that's how I feel
The only reason we saw the Vietnamese girl was because the NYT was not captured. The NYT, the ACLU, and even government agencies were on (or at least more on) the side of the people. Now they are completely captured. It's very hard to capture rhetorical ground period, but when you have a trillion dollar industry actively working against you, it is near impossible. With the Canadian convoy alone, you have a psyop infiltrating a freedom movement--either hijacked or instigated from the beginning, that has drawn in so many good guys, it is indistinguishable from the movement itself. The people already in the know can't keep up--how do you expect to capture those that can't see the nose in front of their face?
Scrappy is ok with me! I hear everything you are saying and your tone and feeling are exactly on the mark. The world is just more complicated, complacent and cuckolded than ever before.
Right on brother, in 1989 it was smuggled videos of Dallas episodes going into Eastern Europe, today it is thumb drives being swum across the river border into North Korea. But truthiness finds a way. It's penetrating feminists, as they see decades of their work completely unravelled by the trans supremacists. Look at CNN, they have lost 9/10ths of their viewers. More viewers last week for The History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" program. But my point is that when we do get a voice, even a little one, we must be FAR DOWN THE DIAL to get the kind of zeitgeist movement we need. WAR IS HERE and WAR IS NOW
The problem is that it hurts those of us running a business. I got off, and it financially hurt me, but our freedom is more important than my income. I will just give up some things I was lucky to enjoy.
But that lost profit is exactly the reason that competitors will rise up. If there is money to be made, you can bet one of the competitors will figure out a way to harness that pony. Just be patient.
I'm sorry--none of it is a light matter, and the solution of "getting off" doesn't come easy for many. I certainly didn't mean it to sound irreverent, just as a bottom line fact.
Most journalism as we once knew it is dead as a door nail. In most of the mainstream outlets, so-called journalists are now political activists and probably most of them would admit that. More specifically, they operate as leftist activists. There is no such thing as a balanced reporting of basic facts any more so we must seek out alternative sources of information. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in journalism school to see exactly what students are being taught these days.
Propagandists. One of the oldest professions in the world. You can even see it in the ruins of ancient Egypt where "scribes" write about how great and wonderful some pharaoh is.
Opinion networks is what they are. So "Cable News Network" would be required to use "Cable Opinion Network", and the very appropriate acronym of "CON".
“Twitter argues that allowing me to make factually accurate tweets about Covid might upset the community, or something.”
When commenting on an earlier thread, this is exactly what I suggested we would see argued: truthfulness would be no defence.
This, as Weinstein pointed out over the weekend, is the checkmate in the totalitarian game against free speech being played by our federal government. They even have a word for it: mal-information. “Truth without Context” and we all know who and what provides acceptable “context” that won’t “upset the community.” These are perilous times.
Please start posting on Gettr. You may see it as the island of misfit toys, but it's an alternative and need to vote with your feet. I have deactivated my account on Twitter and miss some of the people I was following, but the misfits on Gettr are pretty good and the number is growing.
ok, Gettr may not be the answer. Either way we need to stop complaining about the censorship police and propaganda machines and vote with our feet by moving to other platforms. The definition of insanity....
Spot on. FWIW, I've never tried Gab but Flote.app is fantastic. Great community. The Co-founders and management regularly engage with the users. They were just kicked out of Google Play store because they refuse to censor content. I've tried Gettr. Flote is exponentially better
Jason Miller (former Trump advisor) is CEO. It's mostly conservative and anti-narrative (Zerohedge, Defiant L, Catturd). I wish more would post on both platforms and ultimately transition. The point is there are alternatives (Rumble, Telegram, Gab, Signal) and complaining about Twitter, FB and You tube has done nothing. Why would they change if everyone still uses their platforms and the advertisers that are paying them are still reaching you?
Can they ban gay or black people? Of course. All they have to do is call them a "white supremacist." (There are, perhaps, three "white supremacists" left in America, for real, but the label seems to work when you need to demonize someone.)
Progressives hate everybody outside their group, but they REALLY hate the people who 'should' be inside it. Thus, Larry Elder is the black face of white supremacy and it's okay to dress up like a gorilla and throw eggs at him! Straka dared support Trump? Lock him up!
Twitter either needs to decide what it is or the Congress should address the matter. The argument Twitter made in the case cited was the argument a publisher would make, not a purveyor of a public square. So if Twitter sees itself as essentially a publisher able to decide what it will or will not publish, then it should become liable to be sued under the same conditions publishers can be sued. Twitter should not be allowed to be on both sides of this situation.
That conundrum has been the problem all along. Twitter won't self censure, the politiwhores won't bite the hand that strokes it and the addicts who are on their 38th dopamine hit of the day can't be bothered to resist.
I deleted my Twitter when they had the audacity to ban our President. Like him or not, that was the last straw for me. I hope you win Alex, because it would be a win for all. I’ll never go back to Twitter; we have alternatives now.
It's pretty hilarious (but not in a funny way) for me to see minority groups claim that if government isn't doing the discriminating, it's okay. I'm old enough to remember when gays were getting bashed, and my parents are old enough to remember when blacks were getting hung. Trusting that 'the leaders' and their minions will always have your back is a foolish decision.
Alex's Twitter fight reminds me of parents fighting school boards to reopen schools that attack their kids with CRT and covid policies. Why are we fighting so hard to get back onto or into these broken institutions? Seek alternative solutions.
I've always thought that way, I mean, my whole life. If I don't like the service I'm getting somewhere, I just look for another provider or another way of getting what I want. I don't see it as my job to fix what other people broke. I admire those who stand and fight, but I also take pleasure in watching losers fall--like seeing Twitter's stock drop in half over the last 6 months.
I've thought Twitter was moronic since the first time I heard of it. I never signed up, thank goodness. And Twit's stock fall was extremely pleasurable to observe.
I care about your case Alex Berenson. I am also curious about how, if any, much of a role the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 plays a role. Is Twitter inconspicuously admitting that its doing the US governments work for them? The law, passed in 2013, allows "Propagandizing Americans," essentially removing the ban of propagandizing that was instituted in 1948 with the original Smith-Mundt Act.
Which of course is NOT the same as FREE SPEECH protection, of course. Just curious if somehow its related. Other industries, like the real estate associations, because of the DOJ, said it will accept complaints on personal social media accounts if there is "hate" speech. Its a super slippery slope if you actually look at the verbiage used in the policy 😖
This is a great, and often overlooked, point. It shouldn't surprise people that once propaganda is legalized, the 'leaders' will fill the airwaves with propaganda.
So long as they have Section 230 protection, neither Twitter nor Facebook will bend. What's the point? They're not being punished or held to account in any way. What we NEED is an overhaul in Congress—people with a spine who are not on the dole of Big Pharma and Big Tech. We need a government that seeks to ensure the Bill of Rights is upheld for ALL Americans, not letting Big Tech snuff out the voices who disagree with their socialist/leftist leanings.
Alex's lawsuit against Twitter is a iconic example of how we do that. Why is that not crystal clear to everyone?
Alex is reporting for us, or as you put it, We the People; he is being made an example of for all of us; his lawsuit is not just about him alone: It's about free speech or the lack thereof in the United States. If he were to be permanently banned from Twitter, that would reify the complete takeover of all theoretically independent media, so that the government could openly, freely, continually use them as pure propagandists, or, (in my favorite moniker) media whores.
Of course, we who read and comment on Alex's Substack already know that this is what is happening, and has been for quite a while, in increasing degrees over the past several decades, to the point that now it seems virtually complete. But, much as many here might not wish to acknowledge this, we're a distinct minority of the population. Most Americans still truly believe there is such a thing as free speech in the United States of America. Berenson vs. Twitter is critical precisely because it addresses this directly.
I thought the whole point of Twitter was to enable dissidents to spread their message of truth, helping them topple repressive regimes. Am I missing something here?
Twitter needs to stop being allowed to hide behind section 230. It protects a provider against claims from the removal of objectionable, harassing, material, etc., as long as the removal is in "good faith." Good faith is never defined, and there's no settled case law on it, so it really depends on the judge's interpretation. But considering that Twitter is now leaving up accounts and posts linking to the Freedom Convoy donor list - private information gained through a hack, which is explicitly against their TOS, and the reason they banned the Hunter Biden laptop story - I think it's hard for a non-partisan to argue they're acting in good faith.
I was listening to the most recent Darkhorse podcast (begin 1:06:00) last night and Bret & Heather referenced the 2012 Omnibus NDAA bill signed by Obama on 12-31-2011. It had two additional provisions: 10.21, 10.22 that Bret surmises may end the US Constitution. "These provisions allow indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of any person, including American citizens, picked up anywhere on earth, for effectively engaging in terrorism or supporting those who do....Terrorism is a magic word. When the executive branch uses that term, they are declaring your rights null and void."
So, if we are all terrorists according to the "mis- dis- and mal-information DHS terrorism bulletin (see Alex's "Join me. Become a terrorist threat."), it would seem that thanks to Obama we could all be disappeared until the end of hostilities. And who really thinks hostilities will ever end.
I left Twitter and Facebook because off censorship....why anyone is still there is beyond me....if everyone left these bias, commie sites they would fold...
They would if everyone would do what you did and Starve the Beast. Ditto, and I don't use Google products or Amazon either. Brave browser and Brave search and I pay for encrypted email and watch Rumble.
I greatly reduced my Amazon purchases in the past two years, but it is really hard to beat the "free 2-day shipping" and incredibly wide selection of Amazon.
I wish someone would create a shopping alternative that would aggregate all non-Amazon business with a shared search and cheap/fast shipping option.
Yes, I do, too! But for now, the fact that you've reduced Amazon purchases is still great. We were big Amazon shoppers and have tried to reduce it a bit more every couple months for the past year and a half or so.
Basically, I am finding new places to purchase things as needs come up. Once I've researched the best place to purchase, we stick with it and keep finding new ways to reduce our dependence on Amazon.
But when we are traveling and staying at campgrounds a week at a time and need things to arrive dependably on time, we still go with Amazon. I wish we could cut even that out.
I deleted my account 2 years ago. It was a waste of time. All the things Alex said about covid vaccines were backed up by data. He was banned because he was on the wrong side of the official narrative from the WH, not because his statements were misinformation.
They stole my data and continue use long after I was permanently banned for tweeting request for class action attorneys regarding the “throttling” of a contracted “utility” service (legal precedent already established) due to secret shadowbans (throttling)…
Their answer, I was openly permanently suspended using the false excuse of ONE tweet calling Brett Baier a “media whore”…
Alex is absolutely right to devote time to the censorship issue and Twitter lawsuit. It goes hand in hand with the virus, mandates etc. the most frightening part of all of this to me is the censorship and outright suppression of dissent - we can overcome the virus, overcome the actual and potential harms of the MRNA experiments, but if we lose our freedoms ....
Absolutely agree with you. Banning you and banning President Trump from Twitter—same thing. It’s like saying you can’t stand on the sidewalk and share an opinion. The air waves belong to the almighty government mob and shall not be used for transmitting sounds that don’t conform.
And it's especially hilarious considering the courts ruled that Trump couldn't block somebody from posting on Trump's Twitter posts....because First Amendment.
Puts it in perspective, doesn't it? It was all about activism and asserting control to go after the bakery. Clearly they don't care a whit about violating the principle themselves, not to mention they don't admit to serving a God who has given principles, unlike the baker who held sincere religious beliefs and was not unkind to anyone who did not share them. He simply believed he should obey what his faith taught. How different that is from actively targeting people to exclude as Twitter has done.
There is a lot of nuance and detail to this case that I cannot speak to but on the narrow question of can a private company or person "abridge" someone's "freedom of speech" the answer surely is "yes." Is Twitter truly a private company or is it a common carrier? Do federal laws mandate that it provide equal access? Might it be established to be some sort of a quasi-governmental entity given its entanglements with liberal/progressive politicians.? Etc., etc. Go make some new case law, Alex, and good luck. I just hope that in the process we don't mess up established first amendment law because if some guest at my house starts spouting nonsense and I want them to leave, I don't want to be told I can't do that because the nutcase has "freedom of speech."
Until there is an alternative to Twitter for us to be able to follow voices like Daniel Horowitz and Jeffery Tucker, I'll continue using it.
That said, Congress needs to define whether Twitter is a publisher or not. Obviously it is and if so, it can ban whomever it wants but at the expense of losing its Section 230 protections.
Why would anyone be on these platforms? 🙄 "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain. 🤷🏼♀️
This is WAY more important than facts about the toxic jab, which people will understand one at a time even under the current censorship. If people are to ever know the truth about anything, then you HAVE to win this fight. Godspeed!
I don't have a twitter account and I never will but if all the true Americans deleted their Twitter account all social media platforms would get the message
I deleted mine a few weeks ago
I have not and probably will not delete my Twitter account. Twitter in many instances serves very useful purposes. The other day I was alerted to a wonderful discussion between Sebastian Rushworth and Christine Stabell Benn on Dr Benn's Twitter feed.
My hope is that Alex's lawsuit will force Twitter to be the Twitter it claimed it intended to be and restore the full value of its platform.
You can read twitter without an account: 2 ways:
1. if you have a link to a Twitter post (like from an article or Twitchy), you can open that. But it's even better to open that in a Private Window (I use Brave Browser, and suggest you do too) (you can also do an Incognito window in Chrome). This way, you'll get a lot farther before Twitter "stops" you to force you to log in.
2. something I have not used yet is called https://nitter.net/. Just another way to see Twitter without an account.
The key is not deleting for good, rather en masse, as part of a concerted protest. For a day, to weeks.
Let the market show them who is master!
That said, I'm not a member of Twitter.. only lately (last two years) I've used it on Google search to see AB's, GVBs, Malone's and and the 'other good guys' various science grabs and warning posts).
AB getting kicked off of Twitter led me to Substack.
I must say, I prefer Substack blogs and news articles more than any other platform!!!
Thank you, no need for Twitter much (except as screen shots in Substack posts).
I'm a bit cheap subscription wise, being in tourism and having had my livelyhood and freedoms eroded and destroyed for the last two years ongoing...though I share mercilessly !
Sic'em AB!!!
Never had one. Never really understood it or what all the fuss was about. Deleted all other social media accounts in April 2020. Haven't looked back.
exactly what i was going to say. everyone who supports freedom of speech should get off of twitter. now. i won't read mr berensons tweets if he is allowed back on twitter on principle. i do not want my 'clicks' to enrich such an underhanded, subversive company.
TBH, all the true proponents of free speech already have (unless, like me, they were already banned and can't even log in). The chatter you see on Twitter is between Leftists and bots/paid posters.
It has been remarkable how Sen Paul gets immediately attacked whenever he posts. The bots arrive to flood the zone, Back in Usenet forum days where content space was limited, that was called pushing a poster out. On Twitter it results in tedious scrolling to see what comments might be real.
This happens to so many conservative posters…it’s almost like a planned attack
I agree.
I'm deleting my account which was made in 2012, I read your post and just thought that it was a good idea as a statement, I'm not american but we share the same values.
Good for you. I have never had Twitter account.
I deleted mine Jan 2021 as well. I think we are all fighting for the same thing. Our belief in certain UNALIENABLE rights? Twitter is an example of the opposite, per this post of Alex's, and I think he's made a decent point. Even though you and I and many others don't have an account there, could we acknowledge that enough activity still seems to happen there that it's relevant? Particularly the de-platforming of an American President.
Dec 2020 for me
Agreed!
While the Taliban thrives.
I deleted mine November 4th after the 2020 election. I realized nothing good would come from that platform.
I think most already have. Twitter is a near total echo chamber.
That is not true, people cling to Twitter like mussels to the pier.
And the clingers are having conversations with paid posters and bots.
Guilty as charged. I read Cernovich's feed multiple times a day.
He said over and over that young men (his audience) should get the vaccine to keep their jobs to provide for their families. I called him out on this several times. I was probably rude on my last one because he blocked me.
Best thing to ever happen to me. Twitter no longer has any appeal.
His feed was great except for that California vax pass garbage. I think he's probably J and J vaxxed, so he didn't get the point of resisting for our children and their future.
I actual have only an existence there so I can see what garbage is being spewed. It’s strictly for observation purposes so I can stay in the loop of all views. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer—kind-of-thinking for me. The TV went off 15 years ago, though, and that gave me an excellent advantage in keeping my mind clear to see through the smoke and mirrors.
Buzz that’s better than mass psychosis!!
Sadly, that made me laugh. But it’s so true. I want to, but I can’t break away. I built several amazing lists to follow. It takes months to build without “trains”. I don’t get as much hate now, it’s weird. I’m sure they’ve found a way to make me invisible or something.
Why do you think Jack Dorsey bailed? So obvious its absurd
...all true Americans...
what is that group, where the hell are they now two years later after this relentless assault on this country, and, per that they haven't deleted Twitter, and most of our politicians use it to maintain contact with the public, what the F does that say about our "representation"?!
My God, when the hell do people realize the adage "deeds not words define us" means what we do is what we are!?...
Twitter is uniquely addictive to journalists.
You can just FEEL how badly Alex wants to get back on there and "own" people again.
That for sure, but not just that by any stretch.
Twitter is their sixth grade lunch room table, and they are all jockeying to be one of the cool kid "Mean Girls".
I remember a Caitlin Flanagan piece on how she was trying to quit Twitter with the help of her son. It was like Intervention. She said she had a compelling desire to get back on and talk shit about Naomi Klein, hahahahahahaa...
Alex is like Twitter Joker.
Fuck, that's good, Sage. I'm gonna write a post about this right now!
I haven't deleted my account, however haven't been on in over a year. My account serves me one purpose. I will log back on in October to eliminate candidates. Any candidate running on free speech and other pro constitution, bill of rights platform will be considered a liar from the word 'GO' in my eyes if they're campaigning on Twitter. Yes, Matt Gaetz too. I'll skip that box because their not authentic.
Why do you hate Matt? What did he do? Isnt he getting hte January 6th people out?
Wait, you can?? I have a bare bones one I made years ago and I keep it so I can watch the other side and see what’s being said. I can delete it and still be able to follow links? If that’s the case, it’s going down!
I no longer can. Lets me look for 20 seconds or so then a giant twiter log in pop up appears blocking the feed.
Deleted my Twitter and FB
Twitter just banned DefiantL's for no apparent reason other than they keep track of Leftist hypocrisy through screenshots of an old tweet right above a new tweet where the Leftist has done a 180 degree turn...
George Betsios , I have never had one either and agree people should rise up and delete their accounts, but they won’t it’s called mass psychosis on a different level.
Amen
Absolutely! It’s what I keep saying. It may seem futile but we gotta do it!
IMHO, there are two fundamentally different issues in play here.
1) Does Twitter have the right to be arbitrary and capricious with respect to who it allows on it's platform?
2) How and to what extent are public officials (from the White House on down) putting pressure on Twitter to de-platform certain voices?
I'm only tangentially interested in #1, but am keenly interested in #2. I don't believe for a moment that the tech giants are operating in a vacuum. I believe they are operating in an environment of "official pressure". I believe the government (at multiple levels) is plainly violating the First Amendment by outsourcing their censorship to nominally private companies.
Not only that, the oligarchs are actually the ones running the government. Everything is done at the behest of the WEF.
They admit they are balls deep in the censorship.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administrations-admission-theyre-flagging-content-to-facebook-sparks-furor/ar-AAMcFjp
That was Judge Thomas’s point. They’re a tool of the government which means first amendment protection applies.
I do recall Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai describing his experience fighting big tech and how he discovered that some of these guys (Twitter maybe?) had a place where government officials could enter and essentially give instructions on who had to be deleted, etc. I do not remember the specifics, I think he was explaining this during the Mike Lindell symposium in August. They really are not doing it on their own, they are government agents.
Another argument for the total restructuring of what a Public Servant is allowed to do. They work for US--not the other way around. And they are about to be reminded of that fact in a bigly way
It is called a “trusted Twitter partnership.” In Shiva’s case the state of MA gave twtr the order to shutdown his account when he pressed the question of access to the ballet images that must be kept by law.
He sued on 1A grounds but it got too hot for the judge who eventually bowed to twtr and ordered the case sealed.
Story here: winbackfreedom.com
https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administrations-admission-theyre-flagging-content-to-facebook-sparks-furor/ar-AAMcFjp
We also have a smattering of court documents showing the same 'easy access' for politicians to 'suggest' banning of customers.
There was a court decision a few years back declaring that Twitter was indeed a public square, and as such, Donald Trump could not block followers. Thus, legally, our courts have answered on #1, but in the age of COVID, what the heck does law or precedent have to do with anything?
hmmm... Donald Trump cannot block followers on Twitter, but Twitter can block Donald Trump...
I am more interested in #2 as well, of course, but #1 is important in the argument as to whether Twitter deserves Section 230 protection -- are they a publisher or a platform. If they are a publisher there is one set of rules but they claim they are not because they want liability protection; so if they are a platform, they should not be engaging in editorial discrimination (such as a newspaper may have the right to do -- choosing what to publishing within it's pages.)
Except the law doesn't make any distinction between publisher and platform .
I agree, these two issues are definitely distinct. My interest to date has skewed heavily towards the second. However, as tempting as it might be to view the first as simply a matter of petty personal disputes governed primarily by boring old contract law, I believe it is actually way more interesting than that. For one thing, California's regulation of message carriers as so-called "common carriers" required to "serve all comers" highlights the tension that has always existed between "free enterprise" and those private contractual relationships considered important enough to society that government must regulate them. At least with those kinds of matters, government involvement is out in the open and we can talk about how much regulation is warranted. Not so when government misleads or is not fully transparent with the public as to the extent of its involvement - for example, when a White House spokesperson talks about conversations government has with its "trusted partners" in Big Tech who NEVERTHELESS, she says, make their OWN decisions about all matters involving speech. And any attempt to call BS on THAT is met immediately with gaslighting, shutting down any real conversation. So the second issue is definitely the more explosive, but I really like the juxtaposition of the two. Thanks for your comment!
Twitter just banned DefiantL's for no apparent reason other than your #1 and the fact they keep track of Leftist hypocrisy through screenshots of an old tweet right above a new tweet where the Leftist has done a 180 degree turn...
2b) How and to what extent is big pharma putting pressure on Twitter?
Why should Twitter be subject to public accommodations law? No businesses over the past two years had any trouble barring me from entering their premises based on my religious conviction against wearing a fascist political symbol over my face.
if you don't want us to argue over the irrelevant point of whether or not jared taylor is a white supremacist, maybe don't unnecessarily insult him by calling him a white supremacist.
Valid, Alex could've simply said, "purported white supremacist".
I believe he was referring to twitter designating him a white supremacist.
Or, go with alleged...
Do you *know* that he's *not* a WS?
The California Supreme Court operates just like the Politburo. COVID response is our Chernobyl.
“ can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion).”
Why bring it up then? I don’t know one way or the other but labeling just is asking for discussion. Maybe say allegedly or “twitter claimed”? Hopefully he isn’t.
It actually MAY be slightly relevant. Too. I suspect Taylor was banned for his conclusions that there are differences in races. And I suspect he concludes they are not good leaders or may not be as smart. That is true of horse breeds, dog breeds and groups of people excel at some things and not others. Some of which is obviously true. Where people become racists is when they assume individuals fit any stereotype. So these conclusions are not now tolerated. Like people would now be banned for saying there are differences in SEXES--they'be be banned and called haters and transphobes. Or like Alex that even though what he posted was true, he MISLED his audience into a conclusion unacceptable. Perhaps censorship is the ONLY point, but this has become a culture war and Taylor MAY be a victim of it as is Alex. (I haven't studied Taylor enough to defend him; I'm just commenting on these issues generally). Mostly it annoys me Alex calls him a white supremacist and then forbids anyone to challenge that when he's advocating for free speech. I assume he won't kick us off for arguing, but Alex is a bit full of himself at times (like talking to Dr. Malone as he did). Still, I know he has integrity, and I would also look into anything Alex claimed as a journalist.
Don't know Taylor, his actions, nor the case. But "alleged" would have served the purpose for this post by Alex.
Yeah, Alex is basically right that the judge was sympathizing with Taylor's RIGHTS, not agreeing with him. And that's true. But this culture war is important because the next judge won't do that. It's clear we are allowed to reach CERTAIN conclusions now. Yet it's relevant some because these culture warriors are going after anyone who doesn't fit the new woke ideology. That encompasses a lot of people now. So someone like Taylor (and even Alex) are targets.
Well, I see the POINT you are making and is valid of course, and we have long supported you, but YOU called Taylor a "white supremacist" yourself so that invites debate over it. Don't do that and then forbid anyone to argue with you! Prompted me to research the guy some. He MIGHT be, I'd have to look more carefully (but the REASOn they say he is right off the bat I saw --that he says there are differences between races, health differences and more --just like dog breeds--does not make him one. If I find he thinks one is SUPERIOR to another, then I will agree with you). Not the point here, whether he is one or not. I agree. It's how you said this that is the point! If you didn't want anyone to argue over it, you should have phrased that differently. Such as "he has been called or known as." And you could have qualified that more with "possibly with good reason." But you didn't. So I would imagine you might get someone taking exception to it possibly. So you probably brought that on yourself. You sometimes speak without thinking, it seems.
"can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion" Then why call him an incendiary name that's used 100% of the time to cast people as heretics? It's the race version of "anti-vaxxer."
Good point.
One could rewrite "a white supremacist named Jared Taylor (can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion)" succinctly as "an alleged white supremacist named Jared Taylor".
I don't think "alleged" makes it better. For example: "Alleged anti-vaxxer Alex Berenson." Both "anti-vaxxer" and "white supremacist" are terms to cast people as heretics so their views or arguments can be dismissed without debate.
Fair point, perhaps "so-called" would be better, since it's connotation is "probably inappropriately alleged". Nevertheless, you're right that "racist" and "anti-vaxxer" are toxic terms nowadays.
In a world that allows financial institutions to close your accounts and ban you because of what you stand for, that shuts down businesses for any reason at all, that forces experimental injections on its citizens, even after it knows it is killing hundreds of thousands, that takes away parents rights to make decisions over their children's education and health, that makes it illegal and punishable by imprisonment to speak against the government or its captured institutions, is more than likely to let a company like Twitter cancel speech as it sees fit. In fact, that is even better -----getting "private" industry to do its dirty work.
I love that you're fighting it and you have to do it regardless, but I will be shocked if you win. Another poster is right. The only way to fight back is to cancel Twitter. Get off.
We are still playing nice and they are playing smash mouth. Stalinist dictators always do. The sooner we get into war mode the better (my problem is that I was a history major). Tyrants realize that when they push far enough there will be bloodshed. Vietnam turned when the blood of four students flowed on the ground at Kent State. Trudeau has declared martial law, but so far the citizenry has responded with bouncy castles. So we have the threat of violence by the state on one side with the other side clinging to the belief they somehow have rights they no longer have. That those rights can still be defended by the laws of the land. But those days are long gone; that was a previous land. That was the LAST war. In THIS war tyrants must clearly understand the point at which they will end up in the back garden of the palace full of lead. So no, not at all: the "only" way to fight back is NOT just to delete an app. Think Lexington and Concord, not sipping lattes and logging into different apps. Nobody is "for" violence, but when the state threatens and then uses maximum violence humanity must choose submission and disgrace and death, or matching like for like. Recall: we have RIGHT on our side, and there are 7.1 billion of US versus about 20,000 of THEM. Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive...
I agree with you completely. There is that moment in time where we realize what we just began fearing/fighting has already occurred. It is sinking it more every day and because of alt media, more people are understanding. But as I sit here, I am pretty sure that 90% of the population has ZERO idea what is going on. A great deal of that 90% thinks you are the enemy.
That is not to say I was suggesting that your cancelling your Twitter account would right everything. Did you really think I thought deleting Twitter while sipping my latte would solve the world's problems or were you just taking out your stress on my comment? Obviously, the idea of making Twitter obsolete just solves the Problem Of Twitter.
I am sure you are correct that violence is inevitable. They know that too and will planned (have planned) accordingly.
And yes, there are billions of us.....but it's not that simple. When you have enormous power over law, militaries and media, and trillions of dollars that have ALREADY made certain that medical, financial, education and private corporate entities have been captured, you hog tie a percentage of people of the already small percentage that get it. (This from another Substack I read today: "Now that all the money has been stolen and liabilities are left on you and me (Note 100% of the financial liabilities remain, giving the existing powers the right to seize all of our assets to satisfy them ), switching to digital systems that are inherently deflating will continue to consolidate wealth into the hands of the people who stole the money, and who can still print money, which gives them near-total physical and digital control.)
Sitting in my comfortable home while the electricity still works and the water still runs, grocery stores stocked and a fat paycheck every 2 weeks makes a call to arms next to impossible.
I am an old hippie, and we stopped a war, threw out a crook president, and completely changed the society. But hippies always said that the first step was to raise people's consciousnesses. It is long past due time that the rhetoric of that consciousness raising is suitable for these times: this is WAR. We live in a world where governments use both force and coercion to mandate the injection of deadly experimental poisons for the profit of their billionaire friends and owners. So if not now, When? If not us, Who? The last remaining question is How? We MUST capture the appropriate rhetorical ground and begin the slow process of turning citizens back into warriors. Back in the day that was easier, with images like a naked 9 year Vietnamese girl, napalmed by U.S. bombs, and fallen student/warriors at Kent State. So today we must begin to SHOCK people out of their lethargy and resignation and complacency. Live free or die. Sorry I was scrappy but that's how I feel
The only reason we saw the Vietnamese girl was because the NYT was not captured. The NYT, the ACLU, and even government agencies were on (or at least more on) the side of the people. Now they are completely captured. It's very hard to capture rhetorical ground period, but when you have a trillion dollar industry actively working against you, it is near impossible. With the Canadian convoy alone, you have a psyop infiltrating a freedom movement--either hijacked or instigated from the beginning, that has drawn in so many good guys, it is indistinguishable from the movement itself. The people already in the know can't keep up--how do you expect to capture those that can't see the nose in front of their face?
Scrappy is ok with me! I hear everything you are saying and your tone and feeling are exactly on the mark. The world is just more complicated, complacent and cuckolded than ever before.
Right on brother, in 1989 it was smuggled videos of Dallas episodes going into Eastern Europe, today it is thumb drives being swum across the river border into North Korea. But truthiness finds a way. It's penetrating feminists, as they see decades of their work completely unravelled by the trans supremacists. Look at CNN, they have lost 9/10ths of their viewers. More viewers last week for The History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" program. But my point is that when we do get a voice, even a little one, we must be FAR DOWN THE DIAL to get the kind of zeitgeist movement we need. WAR IS HERE and WAR IS NOW
The problem is that it hurts those of us running a business. I got off, and it financially hurt me, but our freedom is more important than my income. I will just give up some things I was lucky to enjoy.
But that lost profit is exactly the reason that competitors will rise up. If there is money to be made, you can bet one of the competitors will figure out a way to harness that pony. Just be patient.
I'm sorry--none of it is a light matter, and the solution of "getting off" doesn't come easy for many. I certainly didn't mean it to sound irreverent, just as a bottom line fact.
If the only way you could profit was to walk around naked in the streets, while people whipped and threw feces at you, would still do it?
There are so many opportunities outside of the cesspool that is (a)social media.
That is true. And that is why I searched for all alternative platforms and cancelled twitter.
Any journalist who cares about the fundamentals of the profession - as well as any person who believes in freedom - must fight and resist censorship.
So all those stations not reporting facts, are not really journalists. Maybe we need a new name for them.
Journalism is an action, not (just) a profession.
Who we think of now as journalists are more accurately Presstitutes.
Most journalism as we once knew it is dead as a door nail. In most of the mainstream outlets, so-called journalists are now political activists and probably most of them would admit that. More specifically, they operate as leftist activists. There is no such thing as a balanced reporting of basic facts any more so we must seek out alternative sources of information. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in journalism school to see exactly what students are being taught these days.
It's so dead that an old fogey like me who 'learned' journalism in the 1990s has to do the job they won't :/
Vintage J-school alum 1979 here.
“Presstitutes” is gold!
The only thing that I don't love about it is that it compares the media to sex workers, who actually earn an honest living. ;)
Propagandists. One of the oldest professions in the world. You can even see it in the ruins of ancient Egypt where "scribes" write about how great and wonderful some pharaoh is.
Opinion networks is what they are. So "Cable News Network" would be required to use "Cable Opinion Network", and the very appropriate acronym of "CON".
Sounds like Twitter are using the same reasons legislators are proposing to remove freedom of speech in multiple countries.
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/rip-freedom-of-speech?r=raurr
Absolutely it does. ... need to be fought.
Absolutely it does ... need to be stopped.
“Twitter argues that allowing me to make factually accurate tweets about Covid might upset the community, or something.”
When commenting on an earlier thread, this is exactly what I suggested we would see argued: truthfulness would be no defence.
This, as Weinstein pointed out over the weekend, is the checkmate in the totalitarian game against free speech being played by our federal government. They even have a word for it: mal-information. “Truth without Context” and we all know who and what provides acceptable “context” that won’t “upset the community.” These are perilous times.
“I mean, Twitter would never ever do that.
BUT…”😂 Go Alex! 👦🏻🏹🐦
Please start posting on Gettr. You may see it as the island of misfit toys, but it's an alternative and need to vote with your feet. I have deactivated my account on Twitter and miss some of the people I was following, but the misfits on Gettr are pretty good and the number is growing.
Gab is much better.
Yeah. Get on Gab. Gettr is banning people.
GETTR is NOT to place to go. It's backed by the same globalist powers. Do GAB.
https://talkliberation.substack.com/p/gettr-app-report it is a little sus.
ok, Gettr may not be the answer. Either way we need to stop complaining about the censorship police and propaganda machines and vote with our feet by moving to other platforms. The definition of insanity....
Spot on. FWIW, I've never tried Gab but Flote.app is fantastic. Great community. The Co-founders and management regularly engage with the users. They were just kicked out of Google Play store because they refuse to censor content. I've tried Gettr. Flote is exponentially better
Thanks for linking this. I'm glad to know they are working on a privacy focused platform. I want free speech AND respect for my data privacy!
Jason Miller (former Trump advisor) is CEO. It's mostly conservative and anti-narrative (Zerohedge, Defiant L, Catturd). I wish more would post on both platforms and ultimately transition. The point is there are alternatives (Rumble, Telegram, Gab, Signal) and complaining about Twitter, FB and You tube has done nothing. Why would they change if everyone still uses their platforms and the advertisers that are paying them are still reaching you?
Can they ban gay or black people? Of course. All they have to do is call them a "white supremacist." (There are, perhaps, three "white supremacists" left in America, for real, but the label seems to work when you need to demonize someone.)
Progressives hate everybody outside their group, but they REALLY hate the people who 'should' be inside it. Thus, Larry Elder is the black face of white supremacy and it's okay to dress up like a gorilla and throw eggs at him! Straka dared support Trump? Lock him up!
Twitter either needs to decide what it is or the Congress should address the matter. The argument Twitter made in the case cited was the argument a publisher would make, not a purveyor of a public square. So if Twitter sees itself as essentially a publisher able to decide what it will or will not publish, then it should become liable to be sued under the same conditions publishers can be sued. Twitter should not be allowed to be on both sides of this situation.
That conundrum has been the problem all along. Twitter won't self censure, the politiwhores won't bite the hand that strokes it and the addicts who are on their 38th dopamine hit of the day can't be bothered to resist.
I deleted my Twitter when they had the audacity to ban our President. Like him or not, that was the last straw for me. I hope you win Alex, because it would be a win for all. I’ll never go back to Twitter; we have alternatives now.
It's pretty hilarious (but not in a funny way) for me to see minority groups claim that if government isn't doing the discriminating, it's okay. I'm old enough to remember when gays were getting bashed, and my parents are old enough to remember when blacks were getting hung. Trusting that 'the leaders' and their minions will always have your back is a foolish decision.
So, Twitter says they have the right to ban certain people but that they never, ever would. And yet they do!
I wish we could get a class action for any of us that paid for advertising there as we were lied to when we built up our following.
Meanwhile, Canada has became totalitarian dictatorship with the warlord Trudeau-Castreau in charge.
Alex can't cover everything, but I've got you fam.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/tyrants-gonna-tyrant?r=uh70u
This one has links to all the articles over the last couple weeks.
Alex's Twitter fight reminds me of parents fighting school boards to reopen schools that attack their kids with CRT and covid policies. Why are we fighting so hard to get back onto or into these broken institutions? Seek alternative solutions.
I've always thought that way, I mean, my whole life. If I don't like the service I'm getting somewhere, I just look for another provider or another way of getting what I want. I don't see it as my job to fix what other people broke. I admire those who stand and fight, but I also take pleasure in watching losers fall--like seeing Twitter's stock drop in half over the last 6 months.
I've thought Twitter was moronic since the first time I heard of it. I never signed up, thank goodness. And Twit's stock fall was extremely pleasurable to observe.
I care about your case Alex Berenson. I am also curious about how, if any, much of a role the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 plays a role. Is Twitter inconspicuously admitting that its doing the US governments work for them? The law, passed in 2013, allows "Propagandizing Americans," essentially removing the ban of propagandizing that was instituted in 1948 with the original Smith-Mundt Act.
Which of course is NOT the same as FREE SPEECH protection, of course. Just curious if somehow its related. Other industries, like the real estate associations, because of the DOJ, said it will accept complaints on personal social media accounts if there is "hate" speech. Its a super slippery slope if you actually look at the verbiage used in the policy 😖
This is a great, and often overlooked, point. It shouldn't surprise people that once propaganda is legalized, the 'leaders' will fill the airwaves with propaganda.
So long as they have Section 230 protection, neither Twitter nor Facebook will bend. What's the point? They're not being punished or held to account in any way. What we NEED is an overhaul in Congress—people with a spine who are not on the dole of Big Pharma and Big Tech. We need a government that seeks to ensure the Bill of Rights is upheld for ALL Americans, not letting Big Tech snuff out the voices who disagree with their socialist/leftist leanings.
Exactly
As with any government Orwellian paradox, the Comm. "Decency" Act is the core of the problem.
I hate Twitter and the psychopaths that run and profit from it. But, they are only using the tools that the fed's gave them.
Fine. Take on the twitters of the world. But at some point We the PEOPLE must take on the source of all this insanity, government.
Alex's lawsuit against Twitter is a iconic example of how we do that. Why is that not crystal clear to everyone?
Alex is reporting for us, or as you put it, We the People; he is being made an example of for all of us; his lawsuit is not just about him alone: It's about free speech or the lack thereof in the United States. If he were to be permanently banned from Twitter, that would reify the complete takeover of all theoretically independent media, so that the government could openly, freely, continually use them as pure propagandists, or, (in my favorite moniker) media whores.
Of course, we who read and comment on Alex's Substack already know that this is what is happening, and has been for quite a while, in increasing degrees over the past several decades, to the point that now it seems virtually complete. But, much as many here might not wish to acknowledge this, we're a distinct minority of the population. Most Americans still truly believe there is such a thing as free speech in the United States of America. Berenson vs. Twitter is critical precisely because it addresses this directly.
I thought the whole point of Twitter was to enable dissidents to spread their message of truth, helping them topple repressive regimes. Am I missing something here?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=twitter%20arab%20spring
Only the approved repressive regimes.
Twitter needs to stop being allowed to hide behind section 230. It protects a provider against claims from the removal of objectionable, harassing, material, etc., as long as the removal is in "good faith." Good faith is never defined, and there's no settled case law on it, so it really depends on the judge's interpretation. But considering that Twitter is now leaving up accounts and posts linking to the Freedom Convoy donor list - private information gained through a hack, which is explicitly against their TOS, and the reason they banned the Hunter Biden laptop story - I think it's hard for a non-partisan to argue they're acting in good faith.
Do we really have free speech anymore?
I was listening to the most recent Darkhorse podcast (begin 1:06:00) last night and Bret & Heather referenced the 2012 Omnibus NDAA bill signed by Obama on 12-31-2011. It had two additional provisions: 10.21, 10.22 that Bret surmises may end the US Constitution. "These provisions allow indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of any person, including American citizens, picked up anywhere on earth, for effectively engaging in terrorism or supporting those who do....Terrorism is a magic word. When the executive branch uses that term, they are declaring your rights null and void."
So, if we are all terrorists according to the "mis- dis- and mal-information DHS terrorism bulletin (see Alex's "Join me. Become a terrorist threat."), it would seem that thanks to Obama we could all be disappeared until the end of hostilities. And who really thinks hostilities will ever end.
They've already "disappeared" the January 6th participants. They've been sitting in jail cells for over a year now with no trial dates set.
It was a shocking, eye-opening show! A real oh shit moment!
Would you share a link?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bret-weinstein-darkhorse-podcast/id1471581521?i=1000550963494
My sentiments exactly.
I left Twitter and Facebook because off censorship....why anyone is still there is beyond me....if everyone left these bias, commie sites they would fold...
They would if everyone would do what you did and Starve the Beast. Ditto, and I don't use Google products or Amazon either. Brave browser and Brave search and I pay for encrypted email and watch Rumble.
I greatly reduced my Amazon purchases in the past two years, but it is really hard to beat the "free 2-day shipping" and incredibly wide selection of Amazon.
I wish someone would create a shopping alternative that would aggregate all non-Amazon business with a shared search and cheap/fast shipping option.
Yes, I do, too! But for now, the fact that you've reduced Amazon purchases is still great. We were big Amazon shoppers and have tried to reduce it a bit more every couple months for the past year and a half or so.
Basically, I am finding new places to purchase things as needs come up. Once I've researched the best place to purchase, we stick with it and keep finding new ways to reduce our dependence on Amazon.
But when we are traveling and staying at campgrounds a week at a time and need things to arrive dependably on time, we still go with Amazon. I wish we could cut even that out.
It is hard to break our addiction to convenience and that is what these companies count on.
They've also driven so many small and medium sized business out that it's often hard to find certain items anywhere else but Amazon.
yes, it is sickening
"(can we please not argue if he is a white supremacist? It’s irrelevant to this discussion)"
This is such cowardly slur. If you endorse it, defend it. If it's someone else's claim, scare-quote it.
I understood perfectly well, immediately, that the words "white supremacist" were someone else's claim, not Alex's.
Of course it was Alex's. Alex is wording the declarative sentences, not quoting, not citing.
I deleted my account 2 years ago. It was a waste of time. All the things Alex said about covid vaccines were backed up by data. He was banned because he was on the wrong side of the official narrative from the WH, not because his statements were misinformation.
They stole my data and continue use long after I was permanently banned for tweeting request for class action attorneys regarding the “throttling” of a contracted “utility” service (legal precedent already established) due to secret shadowbans (throttling)…
Their answer, I was openly permanently suspended using the false excuse of ONE tweet calling Brett Baier a “media whore”…
Alex is absolutely right to devote time to the censorship issue and Twitter lawsuit. It goes hand in hand with the virus, mandates etc. the most frightening part of all of this to me is the censorship and outright suppression of dissent - we can overcome the virus, overcome the actual and potential harms of the MRNA experiments, but if we lose our freedoms ....
YouTube is against free speech. Of course we already knew that, but here is YouTube's CEO.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1493988032566996993
Absolutely agree with you. Banning you and banning President Trump from Twitter—same thing. It’s like saying you can’t stand on the sidewalk and share an opinion. The air waves belong to the almighty government mob and shall not be used for transmitting sounds that don’t conform.
And it's especially hilarious considering the courts ruled that Trump couldn't block somebody from posting on Trump's Twitter posts....because First Amendment.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-can-t-block-users-his-twitter-feed-federal-judge-n876831
Even though it’s a feature of the software available to any other user. If Progressives didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.
But, if a little small town baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because of their religious beliefs... ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh SCANDAL!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Puts it in perspective, doesn't it? It was all about activism and asserting control to go after the bakery. Clearly they don't care a whit about violating the principle themselves, not to mention they don't admit to serving a God who has given principles, unlike the baker who held sincere religious beliefs and was not unkind to anyone who did not share them. He simply believed he should obey what his faith taught. How different that is from actively targeting people to exclude as Twitter has done.
*BINGO*! Well put, Shelle.
There is a lot of nuance and detail to this case that I cannot speak to but on the narrow question of can a private company or person "abridge" someone's "freedom of speech" the answer surely is "yes." Is Twitter truly a private company or is it a common carrier? Do federal laws mandate that it provide equal access? Might it be established to be some sort of a quasi-governmental entity given its entanglements with liberal/progressive politicians.? Etc., etc. Go make some new case law, Alex, and good luck. I just hope that in the process we don't mess up established first amendment law because if some guest at my house starts spouting nonsense and I want them to leave, I don't want to be told I can't do that because the nutcase has "freedom of speech."
I absolutely stand with you! Keep up the good fight!
That 2nd to last sentence. Alex, you are on a roll!👏👏🙌
Until there is an alternative to Twitter for us to be able to follow voices like Daniel Horowitz and Jeffery Tucker, I'll continue using it.
That said, Congress needs to define whether Twitter is a publisher or not. Obviously it is and if so, it can ban whomever it wants but at the expense of losing its Section 230 protections.
Godspeed in this critical battle, Alex!!! 📣 📣📣
Keep fighting!!
Premeditated Genocide by the Medical Drug Cartel
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/premeditated-genocide-by-the-medical?r=3mvl2
Pfizer Documents Show FDA Knew of Death Risk
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/dr-michael-yeadon-this-must-stop?r=3mvl2
If they're a utility according to section 230 which immunized them from content prosecution, there should be no censorship.
This is bullshit.
America is a third world cesspool. My God look at that video.
And all the white supremacists that are attacking Asians too. Disgusting.
I assume you’re talking about the white supremacists in black face, if you’re sarcastic, it sucks.
"Reporting Pfizer’s own clinical trial data? Not so much."
Twitter does not approve of the truth so it is banned.
Enes Kanter Freedom cut from NBA. With everything going on in this world now, freedom of speech may just be officially over. Disastrous!
Elections in November!!! Hmm, is that more of "WOLF" or "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"
Humans are garbage.
wow, did that realization hit you in the face and knock you SAGET way and fracture your skull?!
After I saw Rasputin testifying in from of Congress I deleted my account and never looked back.
Why would anyone be on these platforms? 🙄 "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain. 🤷🏼♀️
This is WAY more important than facts about the toxic jab, which people will understand one at a time even under the current censorship. If people are to ever know the truth about anything, then you HAVE to win this fight. Godspeed!