If one does a Web search (I absolutely refuse to use the word “Google” as a verb) of the words “google facebook censorship,” the sheer volume of articles and blog posts referencing the blatant and coordinated suppression of free speech and thought on the part of the biggest tech companies is quite sobering.
It’s pretty clear at this point that Google wants to own the online environment in its totality. Not only does this company engage in a level of censorship and social engineering that border on brainwashing, but its business practices are so demonstrably unethical that it’s a wonder they’ve not been investigated for racketeering.
Google ads permeate cyberspace, and some websites that engage other ad publishers have found their sites suddenly flagged by Google as “malicious,” the pretext often being obscure issues with the non-Google advertisers’ back-end ad code. Purveyors of products that make liberals’ sphincters spasm find it difficult if not impossible to get their websites approved to run Google ads.
Thus, by definition, Google is picking winners and losers in commerce, and only the truly naïve individual believes that this could not expand to encompass individual enterprises as opposed to industries Google’s uber-lib leadership frowns upon. In fact, the user tracking protocols and algorithms used by companies like Google effectively give them the ability to engage in counterintelligence campaigns against anyone, from the conservative business owner to the outspoken Christian PTA member.
The retail giant Amazon has also become notorious for cherry-picking winners, censoring media sold on its platform and manipulating the sales statistics of books by conservative authors, for example. Like Facebook, Amazon has its own user privacy issues, and its overall business practices have come into question, even extending to allegations of criminal corruption in securing government contracts.
In the microcosm, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become stellar examples of what liberals think Americans’ sensibilities should be and how dissenting views ought to be quashed. The inconsistencies in their application of community standards are evidenced by the thousands of reactions posted by users daily. A radical leftist, Muslim or a gay activist can post the most derisive, incendiary material and there are no consequences for such action. If a conservative, a Christian or an observant Jew mildly criticizes someone belonging to one of these protected groups, however, he or she is summarily suspended or banned by the platform.
I suppose the rationale of people like Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai is that in the end, it won’t matter if politicos aren’t able to impose thought or behavior; these matters will be handled in the marketplace of ideas.
It makes one wonder what went on in several meetings former President Barack Obama held with the leaders of large tech companies during his presidency. The pretext for these meetings was to address issues of emerging technologies and user privacy, but it bears mentioning that these meetings were conducted in secret.
One could speculate as to the overall tone and content of the meetings, but in light of the criminality of the Obama administration (of which some have been long aware, but which is only now coming to light), I am confident that the tech giants’ current program of censorship was substantially refined and codified during those meetings.
Even lefty journalists aren’t too happy with the effects the policies of companies like Google and Facebook are having on their industry, but like other protected classes under the socialist umbrella, they’re willing to take a hit for the team.
This phenomenon does give rise to a certain cognitive dissonance. It’s been pointed out that in the brave new socialist world, LGBTQ individuals are to be embraced, but so are Islamists, who have a nasty habit of summarily murdering gays and lesbians. These shortcomings are routinely ignored by the left; if pressed, they simply deny that such things occur.
This is par for the course, however, and ought not distract those opposed to the socialist agenda. Duplicity is the socialist’s stock-in-trade, as is the wholesale betrayal of these protected groups once they’ve attained power.
Because socialists and hardcore liberals are without honor, tech giants’ desire to extinguish free speech and independent journalism is reflected in the microcosm of their properties, wherein they enforce their “morality” without restraint. This foreshadows the ruthlessness with which our population will be handled should these odious creatures gain political ascendency.
If I’d said to you prior to 1982 that yes, AT&T cornered the market on telephone service, but it’s a sovereign business entity that can operate as it wishes, and no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use the telephone, you would have seen the folly of that line of reasoning.
The federal government did and determined in 1982 that AT&T had established an illegal monopoly, which led to its breakup that year. Had the company attempted to implement a malignant political agenda rather than or in addition to employing unethical business practices to capture a market, I am quite confident that its executive board members would have been tried for treason, and the company’s assets liquidated.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.