Indexing, advertising and payments: 3 threats to Free Speech

Daniel Greenfield has more on the threat to free speech, and how Big Tech censors information. At Front Page:

After the 2016 election, the claim that free speech had gone too far and needed to be controlled became widely accepted, first in the media, and then among the big dot coms who coordinated a censorship campaign with media fact checkers. The stated goal was to stamp out ‘disinformation’. And ‘disinformation’ was defined as any viewpoint that media lefties disagreed with or found disagreeable.

Fact checkers were embedded into Facebook and Google’s operations. Conservative content was censored, deranked, and pushed under corporate media content. The ‘disinformation’ pretext, which was supposed to describe foreign propaganda, was extended to apply to nearly any conservative view.

. . .

This push to suppress conservative content on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies is an attack on indexing. People find posts, articles, and videos through search engines, these days largely a Google monopoly, and peer feeds on social media. The indexing attack has been successful with conservative sites losing traffic, and conservatives being banned on social media.

But indexing is just one prong of the attack. The others are advertising and payments.

If you’re a leftist, you don’t want people finding conservative content. Going after indexing means that the people who aren’t specifically looking for conservative content won’t find it. The idea is to turn conservative media into a ghetto. The impact on elections and national debates is obvious.

. . .

There is much more in the full article here.

# # #

Steyn on blacklists, et al

Mark Steyn's column of Tuesday is my link of the day, and his subjects are the double standards and great divide between liberals and conservatives -- through the recent posturing by the TV stars of Will and Grace. A brief excerpt:

  

These days, alas, "Will & Grace" is all will and little grace, both of its stars leading the way in Hollywood's ever more naked enforcement of what is, if not yet a one-party state, certainly a one-party culture. The other day both of its eponymous stars, Eric McCormack and Debra Messing, demanded that The Hollywood Reporter release the names of all those attending a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Trump so that, in McCormack's words, "the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with". Hollywood stars have principles, you know: it's one thing to work with known sex predators, but quite another to work with a fellow who votes for the other party in a two-party system.

After announcing their plans for a new blacklist, Debra Messing (whom I enjoyed in the flop show "Smash") went further and agreed with an Alabama pastor that black Trump supporters are mentally ill. Personally, I am reluctant to pronounce on mental-health issues in a world where The New York Times will report straight-faced the claims of distinguished scientists to have "ridden on the back of an invisible bear conjured by an osha root" and American Airlines will let you board with a horse as your emotional support animal. By contrast, Miss Messing has no qualms about a wealthy white woman rebuking blacks for declining to vote as she instructs. Perhaps, for her next intervention, she'll be recommending mass institutionalization with compulsory sterilization.

Full column is here.

# # #

:Michelle Malkin is on Google’s Blacklist

Michelle Malkin reports on her own experiences with Big Tech censorship. Her report is at The Daily Signal. Here are a few extracts:

I learned last week from a Silicon Valley whistleblower, who spoke with the intrepid investigative team at Project Veritas, that my namesake news and opinion website is on a Google blacklist.

Thank goodness the Big Tech giant hasn’t taken over the newspaper syndication business yet. Twenty years of column writing have allowed me to break news and disseminate my opinions without the tyranny of social justice algorithms downgrading or whitewashing my words.

But given the toxic metastasis of social media in every aspect of our lives, especially for those who make their living exercising the First Amendment, it may only be a matter of time before this column somehow falls prey to the Google Ministry of Truth, too.

. . .

My apparent sin: Independently growing a large organic following of readers on the internet who share my mainstream conservative views on immigration, jihad, education, social issues, economic policy, faith, and more.

. . .

Indeed, my first substantiated censorship by Google/YouTube, which was covered by The New York Times, occurred 13 years ago in 2006. Around that time, it also became clear to me that humans, not algorithms, were manipulating Google Images to prioritize unspeakably crude photoshopped images of me disseminated by left-wing misogynists. And not long after, my heavily trafficked blog posts started dropping off the search engine radar altogether.

Read the full report here.

# # #

Google and the Whistleblower

American Thinker contributor Peter Barry Chowka has the update (“Whistleblower: American Thinkerwas on Google’s blacklist of news sites”):

Buried deep in the extensive trove of internal documents documenting Google’s onerous censorship policies is this gem: American Thinker was on the dominant tech giant’s list of “blacklisted” news websites.

The source of the leak is identified as “Google Insider Zachary Vorhies.” On August 14, Vorhies outed himself as the leaker in a video posted at Project Veritas, which published the documents. Among the hundreds of documents is one identified as a news “blacklist” -- titled “Manual list of sites excluded from appearing as Google Now stories.” Sure enough, among the list of 400 or so sites (mostly from the conservative right but some on the left) -- under the subhead “sites with high user block rate” -- is americanthinker.com.

. . .

Vorhies had been providing Project Veritas with documents he downloaded as a Google engineer for more than a year. He decided to go public this week “after he says Google allegedly called the police to perform a ‘wellness check’ on him.” The story, including a 20-minute long video of Vorhies, is a compelling one and is documented in the August 14 release from Project Veritas.

According to Vorhies:

I gave the documents to Project Veritas, I had been collecting the documents for over a year. And the reason why I collected these documents was because I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the company and I realized that there were going to not only tamper with the elections, but use that tampering with the elections to essentially overthrow the United States.

Hyperbole? I don’t think so. More at American Thinker here. The list of blacklisted blogs is here. Many of my favorite bookmarked blogs are on the list. The report with video at Project Veritas is here. Google’s attempts to intimidate the whistleblower are chilling.

# # #

Censorship on the march

John Nolte at Breitbart has more bad news (“Poynter [Institute] Temporarily Pulls Blacklist with a Big Lie and Promise to Return”)

“Marketers can create blacklists,” Poynter helpfully points out, but since your blacklist might not be as comprehensive as our blacklist here’s a handy blacklist that will allow you to blacklist those we believe should be blacklisted.

Poynter’s list includes… Breitbart News, the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report…

But nowhere on this list will you find the establishment media outlets — CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, Politico, the New York Times, MSNBC, etc. —  responsible for blowing the biggest stories of the last five years:

·         The Trayvon Martin Hoax

·         The Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax

·         Donald Trump Can’t Win

·         The Russia Collusion Hoax

·         The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax

·         The Covington High School Boys Hoax

Poynter’s blacklist was only about one thing, had only one goal — one — and that was to tell advertisers to starve alternative media, alternative thought and ideas to death.

But here’s the real news, Poynter is not retracting its McCarthyite blacklist in shame — oh no… Poynter is promising to return with a better and bolder blacklist:

Therefore, we are removing this unreliable sites list until we are able to provide our audience a more consistent and rigorous set of criteria.

“Rigorous” or righteous? This report is one of several over the past months concerning ongoing efforts to blacklist or de-platform or otherwise shut down a debate. For example, see Daily Caller report here. Iain Murray at Instapundit has another:

Leftist activists have forced a vote at the Mastercard AGM next month to establish an Orwellian “Human Rights Committee” aimed at cutting off the rights of anyone they disagree with. The initial aim is to choke off the income stream to right-wing activists.

Master Card? Well, if Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube can get away with blocking our First Amendment rights, and companies such as Dick’s Sporting Goods bow to political correctness, what will stop Master Card?  

UPDATE from Breitbart's James Delingpole: 

Facebook is Big Brother.

# # #

Blatant: Google’s censorship

The other day, this blog linked to a report about Google’s dishonest and ham-handed censorship of Kay Cole James, Heritage Foundation President. Now there’s this by Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator:

As we now learn from the Daily Caller, The American Spectator has been blacklisted by Google. The DC’s headline, in a post by J. Arthur Bloom, is this:

Exclusive: Documents Detailing Google’s ‘News Blacklist’ Show Manual Manipulation Of Special Search Results

. . .

[American Spectator founder R. Emmett] Tyrrell drew the analogy of Communists taking over an old-fashioned pre-computer-age public library — and then methodically going through the card catalogue to remove the cards listing conservative books and authors. “Google can make all kinds of excuses,” he added, “but this is censorship, the most blatant censorship imaginable.”

Indeed it is.

. . .

(Google CEO) Sundar Pichai . . . looked a congressional committee in the eye and insisted that “we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result” — while the Daily Caller revelations revealed that “Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate.”

There is a name for doing that. It’s called lying to Congress. A federal crime with jail time attached.

. . .

This time around, the target is The American Spectator. This time around the iron fist belongs to Google.

The question has reached the point that conservatives need to have a serious conversation among themselves. Is it time for government regulation of these tech giants? Or is it — my preference — time for free-market competition that provides serious and successful competition to these companies?

Full report is here.

# # #

How the progressive blacklist works

photo credit: Freedom Center

David Horowitz is a red diaper baby who grew up in a “progressive” family, so designated as a euphemism to deflect attention from their communist/Marxist ideology. He jettisoned his Marxist past and has become one of the stronger conservative voices. His platform on the Internet is the David Horowitz Freedom Center and its publication, Front Page Magazine.

His article from the other day, "How the Progressive Blacklist Works," was published both at Front Page Magazine and also at American Thinker. Horowitz details just what conservatives are up against in the not-so-free marketplace of ideas. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center target individuals such as Horowitz -- and their organizational funding sources -- to shut them up. It’s a sobering read; click here.

# # #

NewsGuard's Media Blacklist

art credit: inforrm.wordpress.com

Microsoft Teams with Establishment ‘NewsGuard’ to Create News Blacklist:

Without consulting with its users, Microsoft has installed an establishment media browser extension, purportedly designed to rate the accuracy of news websites, as a default setting on mobile versions of its Edge browser. In practice, it creates a news blacklist by warning users away from sites including Breitbart News, The Drudge Report, and the Daily Mail.

The browser extension, called “Newsguard,” presents users with a red warning label if they navigate to a website that it judges to be unreliable. A “green” rating is given to websites that NewsGuard considers trustworthy.

A number of pro-Trump websites, including Breitbart News, are given a “red” rating by the extension.

NewsGuard itself is not new, but its installation by Microsoft is. In a related Breitbart story titled “Bill Kristol Correctly Describes NewsGuard: ‘Establishment People’ Like ‘Establishment Websites’”:

In a March 2018 interview with NewsGuard Executive Editor James Warren, establishment conservative Bill Kristol correctly noted that NewsGuard, an app and browser plug-in which allows users to avoid what it considers “fake news” websites, would face skepticism since “establishment people” like “establishment websites.” NewsGuard has added Breitbart News, the Drudge Report, and the Daily Mail to its “fake news” blacklist.

. . .

NewsGuard lists Breitbart News, the Daily Mail, and the Drudge Report as fake news websites, but gives the all-clear to CNN, Buzzfeed, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Vice News, despite recent high profile fake news stories from a variety of these approved sites.

CNN? Buzzfeed? New York Times? Good grief. Who is making the decisions about what is and is not Fake News. Yet more media and social malpractice.

UPDATE 8:35pm on 1/23: A reader posted this as Reply #3 at the Lucianne aggregator:

While I think this is terrible, it is only on the phone version of [Mircrosoft's] Edge. Since the three users of that browser work for Microsoft I am not sure that anyone will notice. 

# # #