The Facebook-owned platform’s denunciation of a well-established view of Biden shows the dangers of internet censorship and the fraudulent use of “fact-checking.”
Glenn has absolutely crossed the Rubicon in his search for truth. I admire his courage for telling it like it is, no matter how ugly it gets. That's why I'm here, reading every word and why I believe, frankly, my subscription has been one of the best investments yet.
Keep up the good work, Glenn. I know you've lost a a lot of so-called "friends" as readers, but you've gained readers like me and my ilk.
Many of us crossed it long ago....and stood around wondering if more would arrive, or if we were mistaken. 2020 proved we were not mistaken. Glad you are here.
I watched over the last 20 years as Team Blue and Team Red became movements dedicated more to people and less about ideas. While any Big Tent will have internal contradictions and require some compromise, we have seen both sides become more and more interested in protecting the Team rather than the ideas.
I am glad to see Greenwald prizes his ideas more than his team association. His deep skepticism of the state has long been correct, and I wish I had understood it back when I supported the Patriot Act.
Don’t expect a leopard to change its spots so easily. Greenwald has made his career omitting obvious truths to get to his comfortable leftist positions over the years. It’s only when it hit home that he finally speaks up. We can hope for the best, but the easiest way out for him is to weasel his way back into the fold. Leftists will happily grease the skids for him to do that. I doubt that he has 40 years in the desert in him.
Kamala Harris calling out Joe Biden for contributing to mass incarceration is pretty rich. I was gratified when Tulsi Gabbard called her out during the debates for her record as a prosecutor. Harris literally kept people in prison after their sentences were over because their labor had been contracted out. She refused to admit new evidence proving a prisoner's innocence because she didn't want to overturn the conviction. She benefited by mass incarceration as much as anyone.
She's entirely morally bankrupt and everything she says is either hypocritical, a lie, or both. It was a Herculean propaganda effort to stress that getting rid of Trump was the only important thing, that any monster the CIA chooses to install has got to be better than Trump. Well, here we are.
Reminds me of this choice quote from a New Yorker article covering our bombings in Syria:
"The U.S.-led coalition waged its assault on Raqqa with exacting legal precision. It vetted every target carefully, with a fleet of lawyers scrutinizing strikes the way an in-house counsel pores over a corporation’s latest contract. During the battle, the coalition commander, Lieutenant General Stephen J. Townsend, declared, “I challenge anyone to find a more precise air campaign in the history of warfare.” Although human-rights activists insist that the coalition could have done more to protect civilians, Townsend is right: unlike Russia, America does not bomb indiscriminately. The U.S. razed an entire city, killing thousands in the process, without committing a single obvious war crime."
America’s War on Syrian Civilians, Anand Gopal, New Yorker, Dec 14, 2020
Great reference! Check out early Rouault depictions of political and social corruption. Many years ago I thought it too savage, almost a caricature, despite its rich artistic language. Life has instructed me otherwise.
Gabbard single-handedly ended Harris's campaign for president with a 2 minute interaction... until of course she was snuck in to the white house through the back.
Gabbard single-handedly ended Harris's campaign for president with a 2 minute interaction... until of course she was snuck in to the white house through the back.
Instagram's position is racist in the extreme--literally, not figuratively, stating that the lives of incarcerated black people don't matter. Instagram needs to be called out on its white supremacist ideology.
It's not a rhetorical trick. In this case, it's utterly accurate. The plight of vast numbers of prisoners is completely erased from public discourse to protect one old white man's power and privilege.
Obama and the D party southern black elites are just as interested in protecting their power and privilege as is Biden. Biden is even more of an empty puppet than Obama.
I Saw What You Did There. Steven nailed FB's hypocrisy calling everything/everybody "white supremacist(s)" when THEIR "fact-checking" was really the egregious act, minimizing what the effects of the crime bill really were. Orsomethinglikethat. Kudos to Steven.
This is why I contribute to your operation. It's important to get the real story from actual journalism, not just the big tech algorithmed version of a news story or an expressed opinion. Keep going sir.
Let us all bit a fond farewell to E pluribus unum.
We are witnessing the subjugation of critical thinking to fake facts and the challenge of truth to confirmation bias.
Society is rapidly breaking up into 'truth tribes' with each tribe seeking to cocoon itself in a 'truth hive' that cannot be challenged by the outside.
So, let 'big tech' continue to openly censor its patrons....what big tech is really censoring is their own credibility.
Alternate platforms (which are easy to stand-up) quickly immerge.
For its part, the MSM will continue to report on what the 'big tech' platforms say and not because that message is accurate and that the MSM wants to protect their readers from being exposed to total BS, but because the MSM knows their readers are most sensitive to reading anything that may challenge their 'worldview'. The customer is always right.....so to say...
I, for one, plan to join the tribe of 'critical thinkers'....and Glenn Greenwald is offering to host
The crisis of meaning, the disruption of the "Blue church" information ecosystem by network effects (and neoliberal globalism), the dis-integration of the modern nation state model by 4GW (see Martin Van Creveld) all make the traditional national unity myth in the USA increasingly meaningless and dysfunctional.
The "truth" tribes still largely correspond to gene pools of origin and the distinct cultural values systems of each "tribal" gene pool:
Much of this is driven by $. Who has the deepest pockets? You can buy friends in business, life and local/state/federal office (heck, how about a Russian bride?). Whether you're a newly minted MBA or an entrepreneur, capital is readily available to those able to conform and follow direction.
LOL!!! I totally agree and I am Canadian-- we get nailed for the mullet look in spoofing our "eh" kind of culture. Good god is he also wearing stone washed high waisted jeans?
Great work Glenn. I would add two comments: 1) It was Kamala Harris who ran as a prosecutor on the tough on crime meme and based her career on prosecuting Biden't legislation to the fullest extent, and 2) the legislation by Biden was pivotal to turning the privatization of our prison system into revenue centers. This was the real purpose of the supposed "tough on crime" nonsense that wrecked so many young lives.
If you wanted to created a systemic racism ticket, you'd start with the guy who's been writing racist laws for years. Then you'd add a corrupt DA who uses those laws on people she knows is innocent.
“The First Amendment, … ‘presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.’”
"The constitutional protection does not turn upon ‘the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.’ [c.o.] As Madison said, ‘Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press.’” (emphasis supplied.)
“[E]rroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that ... must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need * * * to survive,’ "
“Those who won our independence believed * * * that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.’”
Our country is based on “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
But maybe, the drafters of the First Amendment intended an exception for criticism of Pres. Elect Biden.
Refusal of a private business to be a platform for any particular individual is not what the First Amendment was about.
It was a limitation on GOVERNMENT. The purpose of the constitution is a limitation on government, not a gift of rights. It does not GRANT rights, it OBSERVED them, and properly sought to protect them from their biggest violator: the government itself.
“Congress shall make no laws...(establishment clause here).... or abridging free speech, or of the press...”
Now, when Congress bullies platforms to censor, or says they will pass laws if the platforms do not censor on their behalf...THAT is in opposition to the First amendment (which is why they historically attempt to bully the press to censor - they explicitly have no legal right to do so). This is just them bullying social media platforms in the same way.
It just so happens these weasels in the social media platforms are happy to oblige because they have their own political motivations and they want to gain favor with the new King or soon to be King. And there is probably an implicit quid pro quo between the Government and the social media platforms (nothing new there).
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1954), was a civil action brought by a public official in his individual capacity claiming he was defamed. It involved a statement critical of the public official, which unlike the statements of Senators Booker and Harris concerning Pres. Elect Biden, was factually incorrect. It was within the context of this civil action brought against a private entity by a citizen suing in his individual capacity that the U.S. Supreme Court announced the constitutional standards quoted previously.
You state: "Refusal of a private business to be a platform for any particular individual is not what the First Amendment was about. It was a limitation on GOVERNMENT.”
Not exactly. First Amendment-state actor law is not as simplistic as you urge.
Please see Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946), which states: "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” Please see also Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001), for a non-exhaustive list of the many ways in which a private entity can and will be deemed a state actor for purposes of imposing constitutional obligations.
Keep in mind that in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc., 473 U.S, 788 (1985), the court held it was a denial of First Amendment rights to deny the Legal Defense Fund the right to solicit money from a private volunteer charity drive aimed at federal employees.
Instagram and other tech companies operating public fora use courts to enforce their contracts setting out rights and restrictions on the use of those various fora. In Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), the court held: "The short of the matter is that from the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment until the present, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that the action of the States to which the Amendment has reference, includes action of state courts and state judicial officials.” 334 U.S. at 18. The First Amendment is applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment and there is no logical reason why state action via the courts in the Shelley context should be treated any differently than state action by Instagram in enforcing the contracts which govern its website. (See the statement in Shelly that: "In Bridges v. California, 1941, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192, 159 A.L.R. 1346, enforcement of the state's common-law rule relating to contempts by publication was held to be state action inconsistent with the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Supra at 17.)
There were four dissents in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921 (2019). A shift of one vote on a nine person court would belie your absolutist position.
There were many cases and steps between Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Change of court policy is an evolving process. Prager University v. Google, LLC, 951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020), is not the end of the process. It may just be a bump in the road. And keep in mind that it was decided by a Court of Appeals located in San Francisco which is in the heart of tech company corporate world.
If someone is defamed, he or she has the right to pursue remedies against the individual who is alleged to be responsible. In no way is that diminished by FB/IG leaving its platform open and uncensored. In no way does the First amendment preclude anyone for pursuing remedies if he or she is defamed.
Actually the First amendment is quite clear. The fact that some courts, at the urging of either the government or other, seek to use it to somehow obtain its own opposite, does not make it any less clear. My post referred to the concept of limitation on government, and that is precisely what it is and how was intended.
The “public” is only a sum of individual actors. It does not take on its own life form and supersede the rights of other individuals simply by being designated “public”. Some judge or judges might have reasoned that, but he would be in error. Even if it’s SCOTUS.
The fact remains, there are no grounds on which to form some “Ministry of Truth” to oversee Facebook, nor bully FB to supervise everything on its site. Yet, there are also no grounds to claim FB cannot choose to eliminate some content, unless they have done so in breach of a contract, in which case it is an issue of contract breach, not censorship.
But a corporation is just a voluntary association of individuals. It is a specific, contractual association. Individuals working together don’t waive their rights just because they are working cooperatively. Since I did *not* argue that individuals or corporation have the right to be coercive, I have no idea what you are referring to.
The point is “the public” - which is not even a specifically defined entity other than its literal sense (which is each and every individual) does not have the right to be coercive, i.e. take control of individuals’ lives, merely because they have “numbers”. If they act as if they do, there is a word for that: a mob.
I would be perfectly fine with a world without Amazon reviews, Twitter or YouTube, which (except for the Amazon part) is basically the world of 2004. I don’t see that Twitter or YouTube have made things better particularly.
Joe Biden appoints the “regulator” who serves as a social media watch dog? Do you not see the absurdity here?
Are we to expect the VERY SAME government who has BULLIED FB into doing EXACTLY what it’s doing - into suddenly now become interesting in the doing the opposite? And defending the criticism of Joe Biden?
“I know we said you need to take down “disinformation” (anything critical of government) but now we want you to stop doing that...OR ELSE! And we mean it!”
The entire political establishment is rotten to the core, and you want them to regulate the platform to do the opposite of what they told them to do?
This would basically make every single specific-use forum on the internet unworkable. Do you want to create a forum to discuss ancient history? Sorry you have to put up with people constantly bringing up politics. Want to have a forum dedicated to religious topics? Get ready for the militant Atheists or other SJWs brigading in and destroying the forum.
The appropriate response to Facebook and others' behavior here is to call them out for it and make a strong case to the public that they are "Public Squares" that should not be censoring free expression. Eventually they will find that either their censoring is what the public demands, or they will lose to another platform that is less censorious.
The fact is that a large number of people in our population love their bubble, and want their social media platform to protect it. And the Social Media platforms need to decide whether they are going to cater only to those people, or if they are going to cater to a broader audience. Trying to get the government to short circuit this effort is not going to fix it.
Your all-caps-filled rant shows how far off you are. I don't want to censor content, of course. Apparently you think I'm with the Dem Party. No. I want more democracy, less power for politicians, and less exploitative corporations. Of course it will take decades or centuries to get there, and we don't know how to do all of it yet. But I look for opportunities to move in that direction.
The reply by user "Political Economist" is a first step. But I would go further. Not all consumers care about the range of issues covered by "privacy", but many consumers do. And it's clear we're experiencing a massive market failure in making the products that these consumers want, which they are currently blocked from obtaining even when they're willing to pay a reasonable cost. That market failure needs to be fixed. For instance, consumers should be able to opt out of having machine-learning systems directed at them, in most cases. Also, consumers should own and control their data and should usually be able to block data about them from being used to their detriment, such as in selecting marketing pitches. Currently, these kinds of valuable innovations are effectively stymied by a set of influential companies and investment funders who like to be called the "tech industry", although they are better seen as technology-exploiting corporate entities who put a large part of their effort into stymieing the much-desired technological innovations that many consumers want. I believe it will take at least a modest amount of political change to fix that market failure.
I actually did not assume you...wanted the censorship. I am saying the government does. So how do you propose a government who wants censorship is going to police anyone who is doing exactly what they want.
The caps are for emphasis not ranting- there is no italics...
Yes, the lack of formatting on Substack is a problem. Sorry, I was responding to the way you seemed to be doing all-caps at me, but your new comment makes clear you're not doing that.
Right now we have a corrupt, far-from-democratic government and an anti-consumer Facebook, who do each other favors at times although each one maneuvers to try to get more of the upper hand over the other. Sometimes you have to fight both of them combined as opponents -- when big 19th-century corporations bribed Congress, the people had to fight both of them. But it's easier when you can divide and conquer.
I've mentioned a couple of sample measures that would reduce the tech-exploiting companies' abuses. "Political Economist" mentioned another. All of these measures could be passed as laws, and other similar ones could be too. I don't believe that these laws have to lead to censorship. If passing these laws creates a slight momentum toward censorship, that just means we need to accompany these laws with increased efforts against censorship. I mean, in theory you could have a president who uses all regulatory laws only as leverage to censor unfavorable descriptions of him, but in practice the federal government is complex and doesn't work in that single-mindedly corrupt way. In particular, I don't believe Joe Biden is going to leave unenforced whatever laws are passed to regulate big tech simply because he wants censorship instead.
That said, there is a tendency toward censorship in the Dem Party; I've opposed it in the past and I'm sure I will again, but it doesn't stop me from wanting laws about the technology-exploiting companies and the market failures these companies produce.
It does not really change the issue, I said “Biden appoints” figuratively, whether it is Congress appointing or Congress creating yet *another* government agency - makes little to no difference. The outcome will be the same, a given party, faction, president- whatever, using your “Agency of Truth” to control the narrative especially the ones directed at themselves.
Instead, let’s observe the First Amendment, and not cede one inch to the government when it attempts to control media content. In this example it’s DNC and in others it will be GOP. In the past the GOP has shown just as much willingness to censor anything it doesn’t like. It’s naive to think yet another government agency - in an already totally out of control government, is going to be staffed with angels who bestow their goodness upon the population and make sure that the single worst offender of free speech (the government) will watch itself.
Actually breaking it up probably would be enough, monopolies on information are just as dangerous as economic monopolies (and eventually turn into economic monopolies anyway). If you have multiple platforms on which to disseminate information, Big Tech’s ability to control “acceptable” discourse disappears.
Breaking it up would not be enough. We already have several giant tech companies that act in concert as one, right down to all banning the same unperson on the same day from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, both App Stores, iTunes podcasts, Spotify, and the first page of Google search results for his own name.
What is your plan, three app stores instead of two? This is useless kayfabe.
The only company that didn't ban Alex Jones on August 6th, 2018 was Microsoft: you could still find Infowars using his name.
Not "wholesale", it was specific types of "business" servers, running well known server management utilities.
"Business" presumably means payroll, accounting, purchasing, etc.
Those kinds of functions are typically open to a lot of mid-tier managers, some of whom are incapable of understanding how to ignore social engineering tactics, and follow basic information security practices (don't use the same browser session to do personal shopping on sketchy web sites during lunch, or download "free" desktop background, as you use to enter payroll information and social security numbers. Yes, I saw that go on for years.)
The server management utilities (Solar Winds, etc.) require "admin" access by definition, and are potential giant back doors.
There are multiple layers to information security and many of them require scrupulous control over human behavior. The lack of human factors analysis in computer systems is typically the largest flaw and largest reason that systems fail. Not "tech" itself. Abuse of tech. Creation of shitty tech based on inadequate design.
Anyone who hasn't found a way to live without Facebook, Instagram, or Tic Toc is a lazy-ass coward who's the main part of this problem. These are NOT essential services by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd argue that posting on FB was the last bastion of the people. This is why 230 must be repealed if they can change our content, as Steve Huffman did at reddit when someone posted political content he didnt like. The same is true for Wikipedia, FB, or anyone who can gatekeep or change my content. Its disgraceful, here we had another chance to let the people dare to think for themselves and yet the elites limited speech to favor their political candidates, while at the same time decrying the other party as "fascists". Its hypocrisy on a staggering level.
"most people" obviously CAN'T/won't think for themselves because they have been socially conditioned, propagandized and brainwashed by the corporate-state.
This is fundamentally about power, truth, and accountability. I don't know if it is possible to hold DC accountable anymore, but I do know that I can walk away from Facebook and Instagram and deny them my information as well as the ad revenue they generate from me. Google, on the other hand, is far more difficult to escape and their reach is almost absolute.
We are in a post-truth era, where objective reality is wholly subservient to political need. It infects almost every segment of society now, so much so that the AMA quietly withdrew its objections to HCQ this week because lo and behold, there is no reason to object to it as a treatment for COVID and there is a rationale for using it. There was only a rationale to deny Trump a political win before the election. How many lives saved and hospitalizations averted could there have been if the AMA weren't almost wholly political?
I suppose the fault lies with us for not tarring and feathering our "betters" on a regular basis for lying to us.
Still, it only goes so far. YouTube, maps, Gmail. To really, truly deGoogle its actually complicated for most people. Installing DuckDuckGo as default browser doesn't do enough honestly.
The reason why this situation is a double edged sword is even if we stop giving facebook, IG, and twitter, google revenue, it doesn't matter because for now they hold the power of information. When they stop a post from circulating, maybe a few hundred will take note, but countless others will be blocked from seeing it. That's what happened the hunter biden story - sure, rightwingers and others saw the story in the end - but it didn't hit the mainstream. So in order to hit them where it hurts, we can't just leave the sphere of information - we have to build up a presence on an alternate outlet - and enough of a presence to make the censors pay.
separately, I think social media and overuse of internet is generally toxic for society and our culture (and me), so I also think we should all just leave and never come back - but true information is also vital.. It's a tough paradox
I deleted all social media apps from my phone, now I basically only check them if I happen to be sitting at my computer and am bored. I am much happier now.
that is good, but the problem remains that they track you based on login, which means some email address, as well as IP# (which you could "fake" via a VPN or similar if you wanted to go to the trouble, and assuming they don't block VPN connections)
What? The power of data is that it isn't static, they need to know what you like, are doing Now not 5 years ago-- it feeds the monkey ie the corporations that buy their (sorry YOUR) data.
I did not know about the AMA action vis a vis HCQ. The older I get, the more I understand Sartre's adage: "Hell is other people." (Sartre was a very regrettable fellow in most respects but there he was on target.)
For those interested here is the link to the AMA document in question. Page 18 addresses HCQ.
That Biden (AKA, his handlers) chose Stephen Colbert for his 'sit-down' to explain his wonderful son's predicament is the biggest tell--its a show, the investigation will be a show, and all the media who refuse to touch the story with a ten-foot pole now will have the Hunter 'exoneration' pasted across their frontpage/chyron.
Joe Biden to Colbert regarding his son Hunter Biden: '...I think it’s kind of foul play but — look, it is what it is, and, he’s a grown man, he is the smartest man I know, I mean from a pure intellectual capacity. And as long as he’s good, we’re good.'
If 'the smartest man' Joe Biden knows gets recorded smokin' crack and getting a handy from a cryin' Chinese hooker/honeypot, the USA is in a world of trouble.
That would be funnier if it were not for the fact it is rendered manifestly false by the fact Biden the Elder's tenure in the Senate overlapped with that of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was plainly far, far smarter than Biden the Younger.
Dear Glenn, please do an article on the repeal of the smith-mundt propaganda ban that was inserted in the 2013 NDAA -- I think that's the year -- and the resulting massive increase in pentagon funding for "public relations", news, film, print media, etc. The entire business model has changed. The pentagon/NATO stenographers no longer rely on ratings and advertising, they are funded by the CIA. The late Michael Hastings revealed how the fact finding senators were illegally propagandized by being shown fake film designed to secure increased funding for the US sponsored Afghanistan war. The following year, Obama repealed Smith-Mundt and made it legal and profitable to lie to the American people. The consequence of the repeal is the increasing censorship and fake news we are bombarded with everyday.
To anyone who has a passing understanding of logic and knows the difference between "facts," "opinions," and "arguments," the "fact-check" scam is just a cringe propaganda tool for morons.
Most of them are as dumb as taking a rando social media post that says something like "Joe Biden seems like he has Dementia" and marking it as "False" because "Joe Biden has denied having any cognitive impairment." Then when someone Googles "Does Joe Biden have dementia?" The first 32 results are hack "fact check" headlines saying it's "false."
Also, any reporter can now officially add to their story that "the right-wing claim by Trump supporters that Joe Biden is cognitively impaired had been fact-checked and repeatedly debunked as misinformation."
The MSM is currently nothing but an echo chamber of propaganda.
Best part is that the "impairment" talking point was first authored by opponents in his own party. It's obvious to anyone that he does have issues. The question is, how bad is it? When we buy packaged produce we check expiration dates.
This is why the DNC took over Wikipedia and why Google was the #1 visitor to Obama's whitehouse. The search results come from google and typically Wikipedia is the first set of results. Never mind that Wikipedia is laughing just wrong on many subjects. Its not about empowering the people or educating them, its about controlling the truth which they have done through their media cronies since the TCC of 1996.
Agreed, the latest example is the embarrassing walk back by British health authorities (BBC broke the story) that they used a source in a Wikipedia article as evidence. "Swallowing hard and clearly embarrassed, Professor Ian Hall, one of the scientists interviewed for the BBC investigation, sheepishly admitted on camera that “the public may be surprised” to learn that he and his colleagues have been using Wikipedia. "
Makes sense. With the ever-shortening attention span of Americans, most of whom are semi-literate at best, the product doesn't have to last very long, and Chinese slaves work cheap.
After the wealth gap and class inequality, censorship by the tech giants, encouraged by the Dem Party, is the main threat to what's left of freedom and democracy in our world.
at a deeper level, it is technological disruption of the information ecosystem. a collective sense making system that is in crisis due to network effects, the Infoglut-WWW
Glenn has absolutely crossed the Rubicon in his search for truth. I admire his courage for telling it like it is, no matter how ugly it gets. That's why I'm here, reading every word and why I believe, frankly, my subscription has been one of the best investments yet.
Keep up the good work, Glenn. I know you've lost a a lot of so-called "friends" as readers, but you've gained readers like me and my ilk.
Many of us crossed it long ago....and stood around wondering if more would arrive, or if we were mistaken. 2020 proved we were not mistaken. Glad you are here.
I watched over the last 20 years as Team Blue and Team Red became movements dedicated more to people and less about ideas. While any Big Tent will have internal contradictions and require some compromise, we have seen both sides become more and more interested in protecting the Team rather than the ideas.
I am glad to see Greenwald prizes his ideas more than his team association. His deep skepticism of the state has long been correct, and I wish I had understood it back when I supported the Patriot Act.
Don’t expect a leopard to change its spots so easily. Greenwald has made his career omitting obvious truths to get to his comfortable leftist positions over the years. It’s only when it hit home that he finally speaks up. We can hope for the best, but the easiest way out for him is to weasel his way back into the fold. Leftists will happily grease the skids for him to do that. I doubt that he has 40 years in the desert in him.
Kamala Harris calling out Joe Biden for contributing to mass incarceration is pretty rich. I was gratified when Tulsi Gabbard called her out during the debates for her record as a prosecutor. Harris literally kept people in prison after their sentences were over because their labor had been contracted out. She refused to admit new evidence proving a prisoner's innocence because she didn't want to overturn the conviction. She benefited by mass incarceration as much as anyone.
She's entirely morally bankrupt and everything she says is either hypocritical, a lie, or both. It was a Herculean propaganda effort to stress that getting rid of Trump was the only important thing, that any monster the CIA chooses to install has got to be better than Trump. Well, here we are.
Defund the CIA!
Or at least have a social worker accompanying them when they’re whacking enemies of the empire.
Reminds me of this choice quote from a New Yorker article covering our bombings in Syria:
"The U.S.-led coalition waged its assault on Raqqa with exacting legal precision. It vetted every target carefully, with a fleet of lawyers scrutinizing strikes the way an in-house counsel pores over a corporation’s latest contract. During the battle, the coalition commander, Lieutenant General Stephen J. Townsend, declared, “I challenge anyone to find a more precise air campaign in the history of warfare.” Although human-rights activists insist that the coalition could have done more to protect civilians, Townsend is right: unlike Russia, America does not bomb indiscriminately. The U.S. razed an entire city, killing thousands in the process, without committing a single obvious war crime."
America’s War on Syrian Civilians, Anand Gopal, New Yorker, Dec 14, 2020
“A fleet of lawyers!” If I had any artistic ability I’d paint a Goya-esque monstrous nightmare scape of that image.
Great reference! Check out early Rouault depictions of political and social corruption. Many years ago I thought it too savage, almost a caricature, despite its rich artistic language. Life has instructed me otherwise.
It's an interesting article. It can be read here if people are interested:
https://archive.is/phNnT
Maybe let Chief Justice John Roberts read that.
Gabbard single-handedly ended Harris's campaign for president with a 2 minute interaction... until of course she was snuck in to the white house through the back.
Gabbard single-handedly ended Harris's campaign for president with a 2 minute interaction... until of course she was snuck in to the white house through the back.
Thats why she is Vice President-elect!
Instagram's position is racist in the extreme--literally, not figuratively, stating that the lives of incarcerated black people don't matter. Instagram needs to be called out on its white supremacist ideology.
ISWYDT. Good work.
It's not a rhetorical trick. In this case, it's utterly accurate. The plight of vast numbers of prisoners is completely erased from public discourse to protect one old white man's power and privilege.
Obama and the D party southern black elites are just as interested in protecting their power and privilege as is Biden. Biden is even more of an empty puppet than Obama.
What is ISWYDT? Where are all these acronyms coming from... ;-))
I see what you did there
I would never ever figure this out -- soon we will communicate in acronyms... ;-))
YMWTRYO
I don't smoke, sorry.
I Saw What You Did There. Steven nailed FB's hypocrisy calling everything/everybody "white supremacist(s)" when THEIR "fact-checking" was really the egregious act, minimizing what the effects of the crime bill really were. Orsomethinglikethat. Kudos to Steven.
This is why I contribute to your operation. It's important to get the real story from actual journalism, not just the big tech algorithmed version of a news story or an expressed opinion. Keep going sir.
Yes. Not looking for philosophical purity from Mr. Greenwald, just give us the straight skinny and let the chips fall where they may.
I've been saying it for months: When you create the Ministry of Truth, dissent is the first thing to be quashed.
Terrifying times.
Let us all bit a fond farewell to E pluribus unum.
We are witnessing the subjugation of critical thinking to fake facts and the challenge of truth to confirmation bias.
Society is rapidly breaking up into 'truth tribes' with each tribe seeking to cocoon itself in a 'truth hive' that cannot be challenged by the outside.
So, let 'big tech' continue to openly censor its patrons....what big tech is really censoring is their own credibility.
Alternate platforms (which are easy to stand-up) quickly immerge.
For its part, the MSM will continue to report on what the 'big tech' platforms say and not because that message is accurate and that the MSM wants to protect their readers from being exposed to total BS, but because the MSM knows their readers are most sensitive to reading anything that may challenge their 'worldview'. The customer is always right.....so to say...
I, for one, plan to join the tribe of 'critical thinkers'....and Glenn Greenwald is offering to host
The Deep State hollowed out the national unity myth starting over 100 years ago, which is when the USA, as originally constructed, CEASED TO EXIST.
The nation state was replaced by the imperial state
re: E pluribus unum
National unity myth, disintegration
The crisis of meaning, the disruption of the "Blue church" information ecosystem by network effects (and neoliberal globalism), the dis-integration of the modern nation state model by 4GW (see Martin Van Creveld) all make the traditional national unity myth in the USA increasingly meaningless and dysfunctional.
The "truth" tribes still largely correspond to gene pools of origin and the distinct cultural values systems of each "tribal" gene pool:
https://medium.com/s/balkanized-america/the-11-nations-of-america-as-told-by-dna-f283d4c58483
Much of this is driven by $. Who has the deepest pockets? You can buy friends in business, life and local/state/federal office (heck, how about a Russian bride?). Whether you're a newly minted MBA or an entrepreneur, capital is readily available to those able to conform and follow direction.
I can never unsee that mullet. It challenges Trump hair for worst look...ever.
You are sooooo RIGHT!
The Trump campaign really screwed up not plastering that photo everywhere they could.
Now that I've recovered from the mullet visual...I wonder how many voters know Biden's record as a legislator and VP.
Hilarious
LOL!!! I totally agree and I am Canadian-- we get nailed for the mullet look in spoofing our "eh" kind of culture. Good god is he also wearing stone washed high waisted jeans?
Why the MSM isn't on this...impeachable offense for sure. "I was wearing a perfectly good pair of jeans!"
Great work Glenn. I would add two comments: 1) It was Kamala Harris who ran as a prosecutor on the tough on crime meme and based her career on prosecuting Biden't legislation to the fullest extent, and 2) the legislation by Biden was pivotal to turning the privatization of our prison system into revenue centers. This was the real purpose of the supposed "tough on crime" nonsense that wrecked so many young lives.
If you wanted to created a systemic racism ticket, you'd start with the guy who's been writing racist laws for years. Then you'd add a corrupt DA who uses those laws on people she knows is innocent.
That's Biden/Harris.
If I'd of known what was at stake, I might have blown "Da Mayor" myself.
Good piece. Please keep up the good work.
Please see the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254
The opinion says, among other things:
“The First Amendment, … ‘presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.’”
"The constitutional protection does not turn upon ‘the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.’ [c.o.] As Madison said, ‘Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press.’” (emphasis supplied.)
“[E]rroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that ... must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need * * * to survive,’ "
“Those who won our independence believed * * * that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.’”
Our country is based on “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
But maybe, the drafters of the First Amendment intended an exception for criticism of Pres. Elect Biden.
Refusal of a private business to be a platform for any particular individual is not what the First Amendment was about.
It was a limitation on GOVERNMENT. The purpose of the constitution is a limitation on government, not a gift of rights. It does not GRANT rights, it OBSERVED them, and properly sought to protect them from their biggest violator: the government itself.
“Congress shall make no laws...(establishment clause here).... or abridging free speech, or of the press...”
Now, when Congress bullies platforms to censor, or says they will pass laws if the platforms do not censor on their behalf...THAT is in opposition to the First amendment (which is why they historically attempt to bully the press to censor - they explicitly have no legal right to do so). This is just them bullying social media platforms in the same way.
It just so happens these weasels in the social media platforms are happy to oblige because they have their own political motivations and they want to gain favor with the new King or soon to be King. And there is probably an implicit quid pro quo between the Government and the social media platforms (nothing new there).
Dear Mr. Donabedian:
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1954), was a civil action brought by a public official in his individual capacity claiming he was defamed. It involved a statement critical of the public official, which unlike the statements of Senators Booker and Harris concerning Pres. Elect Biden, was factually incorrect. It was within the context of this civil action brought against a private entity by a citizen suing in his individual capacity that the U.S. Supreme Court announced the constitutional standards quoted previously.
You state: "Refusal of a private business to be a platform for any particular individual is not what the First Amendment was about. It was a limitation on GOVERNMENT.”
Not exactly. First Amendment-state actor law is not as simplistic as you urge.
Please see Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946), which states: "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” Please see also Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001), for a non-exhaustive list of the many ways in which a private entity can and will be deemed a state actor for purposes of imposing constitutional obligations.
Keep in mind that in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc., 473 U.S, 788 (1985), the court held it was a denial of First Amendment rights to deny the Legal Defense Fund the right to solicit money from a private volunteer charity drive aimed at federal employees.
Instagram and other tech companies operating public fora use courts to enforce their contracts setting out rights and restrictions on the use of those various fora. In Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), the court held: "The short of the matter is that from the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment until the present, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that the action of the States to which the Amendment has reference, includes action of state courts and state judicial officials.” 334 U.S. at 18. The First Amendment is applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment and there is no logical reason why state action via the courts in the Shelley context should be treated any differently than state action by Instagram in enforcing the contracts which govern its website. (See the statement in Shelly that: "In Bridges v. California, 1941, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192, 159 A.L.R. 1346, enforcement of the state's common-law rule relating to contempts by publication was held to be state action inconsistent with the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Supra at 17.)
There were four dissents in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921 (2019). A shift of one vote on a nine person court would belie your absolutist position.
There were many cases and steps between Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Change of court policy is an evolving process. Prager University v. Google, LLC, 951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020), is not the end of the process. It may just be a bump in the road. And keep in mind that it was decided by a Court of Appeals located in San Francisco which is in the heart of tech company corporate world.
Isnt that most of the problem with the legal system? If you corrupt a justice high enough up in the court, you can get your cases thrown out on appeal, or they just rig the case in your defense. This was so rampant in Chicago in the 70's - 90s they had to have 5 different FBI stings to even catch some of them. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RMzA6K7KxlMJ:https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2008-10-22-0810210516-story.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
If someone is defamed, he or she has the right to pursue remedies against the individual who is alleged to be responsible. In no way is that diminished by FB/IG leaving its platform open and uncensored. In no way does the First amendment preclude anyone for pursuing remedies if he or she is defamed.
Actually the First amendment is quite clear. The fact that some courts, at the urging of either the government or other, seek to use it to somehow obtain its own opposite, does not make it any less clear. My post referred to the concept of limitation on government, and that is precisely what it is and how was intended.
The “public” is only a sum of individual actors. It does not take on its own life form and supersede the rights of other individuals simply by being designated “public”. Some judge or judges might have reasoned that, but he would be in error. Even if it’s SCOTUS.
The fact remains, there are no grounds on which to form some “Ministry of Truth” to oversee Facebook, nor bully FB to supervise everything on its site. Yet, there are also no grounds to claim FB cannot choose to eliminate some content, unless they have done so in breach of a contract, in which case it is an issue of contract breach, not censorship.
Agree with this with the caveat that in doing so they should lose their 230 protections.
I meant exactly what I said.
But a corporation is just a voluntary association of individuals. It is a specific, contractual association. Individuals working together don’t waive their rights just because they are working cooperatively. Since I did *not* argue that individuals or corporation have the right to be coercive, I have no idea what you are referring to.
The point is “the public” - which is not even a specifically defined entity other than its literal sense (which is each and every individual) does not have the right to be coercive, i.e. take control of individuals’ lives, merely because they have “numbers”. If they act as if they do, there is a word for that: a mob.
I would be perfectly fine with a world without Amazon reviews, Twitter or YouTube, which (except for the Amazon part) is basically the world of 2004. I don’t see that Twitter or YouTube have made things better particularly.
Break up Big Tech!
Regulate it, or fund innovation to produce something less exploitative. Breaking up big tech isn't enough, though it would help some.
How does “regulate it” work?
Joe Biden appoints the “regulator” who serves as a social media watch dog? Do you not see the absurdity here?
Are we to expect the VERY SAME government who has BULLIED FB into doing EXACTLY what it’s doing - into suddenly now become interesting in the doing the opposite? And defending the criticism of Joe Biden?
“I know we said you need to take down “disinformation” (anything critical of government) but now we want you to stop doing that...OR ELSE! And we mean it!”
The entire political establishment is rotten to the core, and you want them to regulate the platform to do the opposite of what they told them to do?
Regulate it works like making two categories of things.
1. Platforms. Platforms do not police content save to remove that which is illegal.
2. Publishers. Publishers can do whatever they like to manage/police content but they accept the rules of being a publisher.
Let FB/IG/Google and the like choose a lane and live with it. But they cannot have the best parts of both 1 and 2.
In theory this is a good idea but in practice we have seen what happens when large corporate entities break the law. They get slaps on the wrist and fines that are paid with shareholder funds rather than the individuals who committed the crimes. Example - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-iphones-settlement/apple-to-pay-up-to-500-million-to-settle-u-s-lawsuit-over-slow-iphones-idUSKBN20P2E7
So the same government who wants the opposite of what you are sayIng is going to police this to the contrary of their own preferences?
This would basically make every single specific-use forum on the internet unworkable. Do you want to create a forum to discuss ancient history? Sorry you have to put up with people constantly bringing up politics. Want to have a forum dedicated to religious topics? Get ready for the militant Atheists or other SJWs brigading in and destroying the forum.
The appropriate response to Facebook and others' behavior here is to call them out for it and make a strong case to the public that they are "Public Squares" that should not be censoring free expression. Eventually they will find that either their censoring is what the public demands, or they will lose to another platform that is less censorious.
The fact is that a large number of people in our population love their bubble, and want their social media platform to protect it. And the Social Media platforms need to decide whether they are going to cater only to those people, or if they are going to cater to a broader audience. Trying to get the government to short circuit this effort is not going to fix it.
The power-mongers dont actually want to regulate it, they just want to control it. The law should be agnostic of party and have strict punishments for any quasi-pol who attempts to manipulate the system. Unlike what DeMuro got https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery
Your all-caps-filled rant shows how far off you are. I don't want to censor content, of course. Apparently you think I'm with the Dem Party. No. I want more democracy, less power for politicians, and less exploitative corporations. Of course it will take decades or centuries to get there, and we don't know how to do all of it yet. But I look for opportunities to move in that direction.
The reply by user "Political Economist" is a first step. But I would go further. Not all consumers care about the range of issues covered by "privacy", but many consumers do. And it's clear we're experiencing a massive market failure in making the products that these consumers want, which they are currently blocked from obtaining even when they're willing to pay a reasonable cost. That market failure needs to be fixed. For instance, consumers should be able to opt out of having machine-learning systems directed at them, in most cases. Also, consumers should own and control their data and should usually be able to block data about them from being used to their detriment, such as in selecting marketing pitches. Currently, these kinds of valuable innovations are effectively stymied by a set of influential companies and investment funders who like to be called the "tech industry", although they are better seen as technology-exploiting corporate entities who put a large part of their effort into stymieing the much-desired technological innovations that many consumers want. I believe it will take at least a modest amount of political change to fix that market failure.
I actually did not assume you...wanted the censorship. I am saying the government does. So how do you propose a government who wants censorship is going to police anyone who is doing exactly what they want.
The caps are for emphasis not ranting- there is no italics...
Yes, the lack of formatting on Substack is a problem. Sorry, I was responding to the way you seemed to be doing all-caps at me, but your new comment makes clear you're not doing that.
Right now we have a corrupt, far-from-democratic government and an anti-consumer Facebook, who do each other favors at times although each one maneuvers to try to get more of the upper hand over the other. Sometimes you have to fight both of them combined as opponents -- when big 19th-century corporations bribed Congress, the people had to fight both of them. But it's easier when you can divide and conquer.
I've mentioned a couple of sample measures that would reduce the tech-exploiting companies' abuses. "Political Economist" mentioned another. All of these measures could be passed as laws, and other similar ones could be too. I don't believe that these laws have to lead to censorship. If passing these laws creates a slight momentum toward censorship, that just means we need to accompany these laws with increased efforts against censorship. I mean, in theory you could have a president who uses all regulatory laws only as leverage to censor unfavorable descriptions of him, but in practice the federal government is complex and doesn't work in that single-mindedly corrupt way. In particular, I don't believe Joe Biden is going to leave unenforced whatever laws are passed to regulate big tech simply because he wants censorship instead.
That said, there is a tendency toward censorship in the Dem Party; I've opposed it in the past and I'm sure I will again, but it doesn't stop me from wanting laws about the technology-exploiting companies and the market failures these companies produce.
If the government is mostly corrupt as you say, do you not see that giving it *more* power makes matters worse, not better?
Why do you have faith in professional liars and thieves?
At what point of corruption does realize their power has to be removed not increased.
It does not really change the issue, I said “Biden appoints” figuratively, whether it is Congress appointing or Congress creating yet *another* government agency - makes little to no difference. The outcome will be the same, a given party, faction, president- whatever, using your “Agency of Truth” to control the narrative especially the ones directed at themselves.
Instead, let’s observe the First Amendment, and not cede one inch to the government when it attempts to control media content. In this example it’s DNC and in others it will be GOP. In the past the GOP has shown just as much willingness to censor anything it doesn’t like. It’s naive to think yet another government agency - in an already totally out of control government, is going to be staffed with angels who bestow their goodness upon the population and make sure that the single worst offender of free speech (the government) will watch itself.
They wont modify 230 this round because, as you saw, Big Tech helped the DNC win. So they will survive for another cycle.
Actually breaking it up probably would be enough, monopolies on information are just as dangerous as economic monopolies (and eventually turn into economic monopolies anyway). If you have multiple platforms on which to disseminate information, Big Tech’s ability to control “acceptable” discourse disappears.
Breaking it up would not be enough. We already have several giant tech companies that act in concert as one, right down to all banning the same unperson on the same day from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, both App Stores, iTunes podcasts, Spotify, and the first page of Google search results for his own name.
What is your plan, three app stores instead of two? This is useless kayfabe.
The only company that didn't ban Alex Jones on August 6th, 2018 was Microsoft: you could still find Infowars using his name.
Just Bing for it.
Breaking could mean - create competition among pieces..... Current monopoly in each area is the problem
Public network utilities, similar to many successful (usually local) power utilities.
The "free" social media model should be banned.
Not "wholesale", it was specific types of "business" servers, running well known server management utilities.
"Business" presumably means payroll, accounting, purchasing, etc.
Those kinds of functions are typically open to a lot of mid-tier managers, some of whom are incapable of understanding how to ignore social engineering tactics, and follow basic information security practices (don't use the same browser session to do personal shopping on sketchy web sites during lunch, or download "free" desktop background, as you use to enter payroll information and social security numbers. Yes, I saw that go on for years.)
The server management utilities (Solar Winds, etc.) require "admin" access by definition, and are potential giant back doors.
There are multiple layers to information security and many of them require scrupulous control over human behavior. The lack of human factors analysis in computer systems is typically the largest flaw and largest reason that systems fail. Not "tech" itself. Abuse of tech. Creation of shitty tech based on inadequate design.
Anyone who hasn't found a way to live without Facebook, Instagram, or Tic Toc is a lazy-ass coward who's the main part of this problem. These are NOT essential services by any stretch of the imagination.
...entertainment for billions though...
So some say. Distraction is more like it.
there is a general breakdown in collective sense making.
a meaning crisis caused by postmodern social conditions.
I'd argue that posting on FB was the last bastion of the people. This is why 230 must be repealed if they can change our content, as Steve Huffman did at reddit when someone posted political content he didnt like. The same is true for Wikipedia, FB, or anyone who can gatekeep or change my content. Its disgraceful, here we had another chance to let the people dare to think for themselves and yet the elites limited speech to favor their political candidates, while at the same time decrying the other party as "fascists". Its hypocrisy on a staggering level.
"most people" obviously CAN'T/won't think for themselves because they have been socially conditioned, propagandized and brainwashed by the corporate-state.
social media corps are part of that
I'm guessing that your "solution" to the "problem" you have defined will itself be inadequate, or an actual "problem" in itself
This is fundamentally about power, truth, and accountability. I don't know if it is possible to hold DC accountable anymore, but I do know that I can walk away from Facebook and Instagram and deny them my information as well as the ad revenue they generate from me. Google, on the other hand, is far more difficult to escape and their reach is almost absolute.
We are in a post-truth era, where objective reality is wholly subservient to political need. It infects almost every segment of society now, so much so that the AMA quietly withdrew its objections to HCQ this week because lo and behold, there is no reason to object to it as a treatment for COVID and there is a rationale for using it. There was only a rationale to deny Trump a political win before the election. How many lives saved and hospitalizations averted could there have been if the AMA weren't almost wholly political?
I suppose the fault lies with us for not tarring and feathering our "betters" on a regular basis for lying to us.
Use the Brave browser. Use DuckDuckGo. Whittle them out of your life when you can.
LOVE DuckDuckGo. That- Signal and Proton keep me out of the clutches....
Been using DuckDuckGo for about a year now!
Still, it only goes so far. YouTube, maps, Gmail. To really, truly deGoogle its actually complicated for most people. Installing DuckDuckGo as default browser doesn't do enough honestly.
Slowly whittling myself off of Gmail - already got off Google Docs. YouTube no longer exists for me. MapQuest is better ...
Really, this Ludite disagrees. I get everything on DuckDuckGo. I use an Apple, maybe you use an Android?
Apple is also a very shitty corporation.
The choice is between a shit sandwich and shit soup for brunch
The reason why this situation is a double edged sword is even if we stop giving facebook, IG, and twitter, google revenue, it doesn't matter because for now they hold the power of information. When they stop a post from circulating, maybe a few hundred will take note, but countless others will be blocked from seeing it. That's what happened the hunter biden story - sure, rightwingers and others saw the story in the end - but it didn't hit the mainstream. So in order to hit them where it hurts, we can't just leave the sphere of information - we have to build up a presence on an alternate outlet - and enough of a presence to make the censors pay.
They need to be broken up and their monopoly on the dissemination of information busted.
separately, I think social media and overuse of internet is generally toxic for society and our culture (and me), so I also think we should all just leave and never come back - but true information is also vital.. It's a tough paradox
I deleted all social media apps from my phone, now I basically only check them if I happen to be sitting at my computer and am bored. I am much happier now.
that is good, but the problem remains that they track you based on login, which means some email address, as well as IP# (which you could "fake" via a VPN or similar if you wanted to go to the trouble, and assuming they don't block VPN connections)
What? The power of data is that it isn't static, they need to know what you like, are doing Now not 5 years ago-- it feeds the monkey ie the corporations that buy their (sorry YOUR) data.
I did not know about the AMA action vis a vis HCQ. The older I get, the more I understand Sartre's adage: "Hell is other people." (Sartre was a very regrettable fellow in most respects but there he was on target.)
For those interested here is the link to the AMA document in question. Page 18 addresses HCQ.
Forgot the link!! Here you go: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf
That Biden (AKA, his handlers) chose Stephen Colbert for his 'sit-down' to explain his wonderful son's predicament is the biggest tell--its a show, the investigation will be a show, and all the media who refuse to touch the story with a ten-foot pole now will have the Hunter 'exoneration' pasted across their frontpage/chyron.
Joe Biden to Colbert regarding his son Hunter Biden: '...I think it’s kind of foul play but — look, it is what it is, and, he’s a grown man, he is the smartest man I know, I mean from a pure intellectual capacity. And as long as he’s good, we’re good.'
If 'the smartest man' Joe Biden knows gets recorded smokin' crack and getting a handy from a cryin' Chinese hooker/honeypot, the USA is in a world of trouble.
Sorry. That's Dr. Chinese hooker/honeypot to you.
I believe that Hunter may be the smartest man that Joe Biden has ever met. Mr. Biden has spent almost his entire life in the Senate.
That would be funnier if it were not for the fact it is rendered manifestly false by the fact Biden the Elder's tenure in the Senate overlapped with that of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was plainly far, far smarter than Biden the Younger.
People's intelligence varies over time. Currently, I would rate Daniel Patrick and Hunter as being about equal.
No way. Joe Biden has met Jacob Sullivan, and that man might be the devil but he is undoubtedly politically brilliant.
Touche'!!!
comparing Colbert to garbage is an insult to garbage
Dear Glenn, please do an article on the repeal of the smith-mundt propaganda ban that was inserted in the 2013 NDAA -- I think that's the year -- and the resulting massive increase in pentagon funding for "public relations", news, film, print media, etc. The entire business model has changed. The pentagon/NATO stenographers no longer rely on ratings and advertising, they are funded by the CIA. The late Michael Hastings revealed how the fact finding senators were illegally propagandized by being shown fake film designed to secure increased funding for the US sponsored Afghanistan war. The following year, Obama repealed Smith-Mundt and made it legal and profitable to lie to the American people. The consequence of the repeal is the increasing censorship and fake news we are bombarded with everyday.
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
AGREED!!!!!
To anyone who has a passing understanding of logic and knows the difference between "facts," "opinions," and "arguments," the "fact-check" scam is just a cringe propaganda tool for morons.
Most of them are as dumb as taking a rando social media post that says something like "Joe Biden seems like he has Dementia" and marking it as "False" because "Joe Biden has denied having any cognitive impairment." Then when someone Googles "Does Joe Biden have dementia?" The first 32 results are hack "fact check" headlines saying it's "false."
Also, any reporter can now officially add to their story that "the right-wing claim by Trump supporters that Joe Biden is cognitively impaired had been fact-checked and repeatedly debunked as misinformation."
The MSM is currently nothing but an echo chamber of propaganda.
Best part is that the "impairment" talking point was first authored by opponents in his own party. It's obvious to anyone that he does have issues. The question is, how bad is it? When we buy packaged produce we check expiration dates.
I don't know about the expiration date, but judging by the smell alone, I think it was about 47 years ago.
This is why the DNC took over Wikipedia and why Google was the #1 visitor to Obama's whitehouse. The search results come from google and typically Wikipedia is the first set of results. Never mind that Wikipedia is laughing just wrong on many subjects. Its not about empowering the people or educating them, its about controlling the truth which they have done through their media cronies since the TCC of 1996.
Agreed, the latest example is the embarrassing walk back by British health authorities (BBC broke the story) that they used a source in a Wikipedia article as evidence. "Swallowing hard and clearly embarrassed, Professor Ian Hall, one of the scientists interviewed for the BBC investigation, sheepishly admitted on camera that “the public may be surprised” to learn that he and his colleagues have been using Wikipedia. "
Ah Jimmy Wales...
Fact checking is outsourced to labor in Asia.
Makes sense. With the ever-shortening attention span of Americans, most of whom are semi-literate at best, the product doesn't have to last very long, and Chinese slaves work cheap.
After the wealth gap and class inequality, censorship by the tech giants, encouraged by the Dem Party, is the main threat to what's left of freedom and democracy in our world.
I agree and would add the never ending expansion of the homeland 'security' apparatus. We haven't done much with Snowden's revelations.
at a deeper level, it is technological disruption of the information ecosystem. a collective sense making system that is in crisis due to network effects, the Infoglut-WWW