Report: Big-tech censorship campaign reflects Media Matters scheme to silence conservatives


#1

Report: Big-tech censorship campaign reflects Media Matters scheme to silence conservatives

Calvin Freiburger Aug 21 2018 LifeSiteNews

August 21, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – As social media platforms and leading tech companies continue to censor conservative material and publishers, WorldNetDaily (WND) is revisiting a Media Matters memo detailing left-wing activists’ plans to secure a monopoly over online political discussions.

In recent years, a growing number of right-of-center voices have found themselves suspended from, and/or seen their content deleted or suppressed on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Targets have included Prager University, family blogger Elizabeth “Activist Mommy” Johnston, conservative video bloggers Diamond & Silk, theologian Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon, the Franciscan University of Steubenville, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, benign ads from various Republican candidates, prominent GOP officials, numerous pro-life videos and advertisements, and more.

1/2 . . .


#3

2/2 . . .

In cases the companies have reversed, they typically blame the initial decision either on isolated human errors or unintentional side effects of their content prioritization algorithms.

Conservatives are skeptical of such excuses, however, with the Media Matters memo seemingly reinforcing suspicions of political intent.

“The recent wave of censorship of conservative voices on the internet by tech giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Apple mirrors a plan concocted by a coalition of George Soros-funded, progressive groups to take back power in Washington from President Trump’s administration,” WND’s Art Moore writes.

Originally obtained by the Washington Free Beacon in January 2017, the confidential memo was written by Media Matters founder David Brock for a meeting with 100 left-wing donors at Turnberry Isle Resort in Aventura, Florida. It outlines a four-year plan to defeat President Donald Trump and the Republican Party using a variety of organizations attacking on a number of fronts.

The full 49-page document can be read here, and the 11-page section on combating conservative “fake news” can be read here. . . .


#4

From Jan 2017 when this was ORIGINALLY known this was to occur . . .

This stifling of conservative voices will continue of course.

There is a dimension that is correct (Foreign bots, purposeful fake news, etc.) and a sphere that this is very dangerous (stifling political discourse, selective application, etc).


#5

So, a Lifesitenews article complaining about censorship, which is rich considering Lifesitenews’ own policy of censoring commenters.


#6

jagged . . .

So, a Lifesitenews article complaining about censorship, which is rich considering Lifesitenews’ own policy of censoring commenters.

And if LifeSite had the monopoly that the tech giants had, and their same mission, I might agree with part of this.

Why not just deal with the content of the story?


#7

AmandaHuggenkiss . . .

. . . I wish the liberal media would silence LifeSite.

Why not just deal with the content of the story?


#8

Because who wrote the article matters.


#9

jagged . . .

Because who wrote the article matters.

That’s fine jagged.

Then I am going to hold you to that when you cite a CNN article too. Or MSNBC.


#10

Hold me to what?


#11

I find it odd that conservative media spend so much time making George Soros sound so cool.


#12

3 other comments and still attacking the messenger (lifesite, “conservative media” etc.).


#13

I do think big tech censorship occurs against conservative causes and left wing causes are promoted, characterized as ‘mainstream.’ It amazes me how much power these companies have over the distribution of information. We have never seen anything like it in the world. Google, Yahoo, MSN, they all always have totally left wing content. I heard someone say we need an Internet bill of rights - this is definitely true. It will all happen, but it could be decades. I also think these companies should lose their provider status or whatever it is called, in that they are viewed as impartial conveyors of information but instead they are actually editing and selecting content based on certain internal criteria or bias. This means they can be held liable.


#14

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.