imagine a world where the media fact checked and held politicians accountable rather than kowtowed to them, slavishly pushed partisan talking points, and censored dissent.
i think it's carefully calculated to sidestep that. there is no concrete mandate or law. it's just an "ask."
sure, it's about as subtle as a guy named "jimmie the brick" admiring your window and opining about what a shame it would be if someone came along and broke it before offing you glass insurance, but they have not actually done anything official. they're just hectoring.
it's immoral, not in keeping with the ideals of a free society, and outright and overtly fascist, but it's not clear they crossed into "illegal" as there is no overt threat.
unfortunately, these platforms are likely to fall all over themselves to comply and this is a clear signal that the admin is giving them a free pass to censor those they seemed inclined to anyhow.
this is why we need to break the walled gardens, move to real peer to peer internet and social media, and get on a platform that everyone owns and no one can control. that's going to be the only real safe space.
we need to render the idea and practice of censorship anachronistic.
and this is just the sort of pressure that makes it happen.
Is "ask" as a noun actually a word in American English? I was always aware of "question", "request" and "demand" but this is the first time I see this verb used as a substantive...
Facebook, Twitter and Google were all developed in black-budget DARPA, using taxpayer money, and then spun out into commercial settings with figureheads at the helm in a way that profited insiders and cut out taxpayers who funded them. No useful distinction between government and any social media company. Back on 2010s Kerry complaimed, "The internet makes it very hard to govern." Now, the internet and a collaborationist media make it very easy to govern.
Interesting case study of blatant media and medical BBC fear porn operation. BBC claims a certain part of England has massive rise in cases and hospitalizations, doctors scared, nurses pushed to breaking point, ad nauseum. This guy checks the figures from NHS. No deaths from covid in 76 consecutive days. Someone should reverse engineer all the moving parts that had to go in to producing just this one example of agitprop.
Towny
@James_Townsend9
If NHS staff are “distressed”, it’s “spreading like wildfire”, and hospitals can “just about cope” then I was sure no mention of mortality figures was just an accidental omission & would paint a similar story to the one Pym and his colleagues like @SharonBarbour had promoted.
In fact, according to this NHS England data (which you can freely check), the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust hasn’t reported a single Covid-19 death for 76 consecutive days, going right back to 28 April 2021.
Let me repeat that: NO DEATHS FOR SEVENTY-SIX DAYS
FYI, Alex Berenson was temporally blocked on Twitter. It actually surprised me a bit they didn't block him way before. But it looks like they are going to take it seriously now.
After watching the media sit obediently for this, we need a new Trust in Media poll. Is their business model so challenged by social media they need censorship to stay relevant?
Why are they so afraid of other ideas? Why are they so afraid of the information coming out about ivermectin? I heard a video from an Aussie representative that cited actual studies saying how effective it is. Bret Weinstein got clobbered because he posted about it. Why? There are more VAERS reports on these vaccines than with any others. Why are they pushing them so hard? Profit motive? Get rid of so many people to save the earth?
Get the vaccine. We’ll give you your life. Well that’s kind of the spirit of the mark of the beast. All for a disease 99.8% people survive.
Sadly, at this point I think this goes beyond a mere "vaccine". By allowing lockdowns a precedent was set. And most don't realize is that if we keep giving in, a further precedent is set (sort of a carrot and a stick).
The worst is that they still have the climate change narrative to play with. And they will probably employ the same suppressive methods (or worse) we are seeing right now.
Ivermectin is cheap and is no longer on patent. One supposed complaint against the meta-analysis on Ivermectin was that it was "too small." Yet there were almost 18,500 people involved in the 56 studies included. Remdesivir, still on patent and costing 1500-3000 dollars, I believe, had under 1100 people in its (one) study for Covid. But there won't be a provisional waiver on a vaccine if there is adequate, approved, and available treatments. Pharmaceuticals are making bank on these vaccines.
Does this situtation mean that Facebook has become a state actor? And if so, aren't they liable for first amendment violations under U.S. law?
i think it's carefully calculated to sidestep that. there is no concrete mandate or law. it's just an "ask."
sure, it's about as subtle as a guy named "jimmie the brick" admiring your window and opining about what a shame it would be if someone came along and broke it before offing you glass insurance, but they have not actually done anything official. they're just hectoring.
it's immoral, not in keeping with the ideals of a free society, and outright and overtly fascist, but it's not clear they crossed into "illegal" as there is no overt threat.
unfortunately, these platforms are likely to fall all over themselves to comply and this is a clear signal that the admin is giving them a free pass to censor those they seemed inclined to anyhow.
this is why we need to break the walled gardens, move to real peer to peer internet and social media, and get on a platform that everyone owns and no one can control. that's going to be the only real safe space.
we need to render the idea and practice of censorship anachronistic.
and this is just the sort of pressure that makes it happen.
Is "ask" as a noun actually a word in American English? I was always aware of "question", "request" and "demand" but this is the first time I see this verb used as a substantive...
i think so. it's certainly used that way a lot, especially in markets. bid/ask, what's the ask? etc
Thank you!
That’s my question as well.
Facebook, Twitter and Google were all developed in black-budget DARPA, using taxpayer money, and then spun out into commercial settings with figureheads at the helm in a way that profited insiders and cut out taxpayers who funded them. No useful distinction between government and any social media company. Back on 2010s Kerry complaimed, "The internet makes it very hard to govern." Now, the internet and a collaborationist media make it very easy to govern.
Interesting case study of blatant media and medical BBC fear porn operation. BBC claims a certain part of England has massive rise in cases and hospitalizations, doctors scared, nurses pushed to breaking point, ad nauseum. This guy checks the figures from NHS. No deaths from covid in 76 consecutive days. Someone should reverse engineer all the moving parts that had to go in to producing just this one example of agitprop.
Towny
@James_Townsend9
If NHS staff are “distressed”, it’s “spreading like wildfire”, and hospitals can “just about cope” then I was sure no mention of mortality figures was just an accidental omission & would paint a similar story to the one Pym and his colleagues like @SharonBarbour had promoted.
In fact, according to this NHS England data (which you can freely check), the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust hasn’t reported a single Covid-19 death for 76 consecutive days, going right back to 28 April 2021.
Let me repeat that: NO DEATHS FOR SEVENTY-SIX DAYS
Personally I'm just SHOCKED that the formation of the Ministry of Truth would lead to wrongthink being banned!
FYI, Alex Berenson was temporally blocked on Twitter. It actually surprised me a bit they didn't block him way before. But it looks like they are going to take it seriously now.
You can still see his tweets, but he cannot post anything for the next 12 hours
After watching the media sit obediently for this, we need a new Trust in Media poll. Is their business model so challenged by social media they need censorship to stay relevant?
Why are they so afraid of other ideas? Why are they so afraid of the information coming out about ivermectin? I heard a video from an Aussie representative that cited actual studies saying how effective it is. Bret Weinstein got clobbered because he posted about it. Why? There are more VAERS reports on these vaccines than with any others. Why are they pushing them so hard? Profit motive? Get rid of so many people to save the earth?
Get the vaccine. We’ll give you your life. Well that’s kind of the spirit of the mark of the beast. All for a disease 99.8% people survive.
they are losing the debate and seeing the crony capital grifts dry up.
when you cannot convince via discourse, you must stop other voices from speaking.
it's not going to work. they're just going to wind up in a streisand effect singularity.
Sadly, at this point I think this goes beyond a mere "vaccine". By allowing lockdowns a precedent was set. And most don't realize is that if we keep giving in, a further precedent is set (sort of a carrot and a stick).
The worst is that they still have the climate change narrative to play with. And they will probably employ the same suppressive methods (or worse) we are seeing right now.
THIS IS THE GAME
THIS IS THE GOAL
https://mobile.twitter.com/LibertyBlitz/status/1415341963335933958
Ivermectin is cheap and is no longer on patent. One supposed complaint against the meta-analysis on Ivermectin was that it was "too small." Yet there were almost 18,500 people involved in the 56 studies included. Remdesivir, still on patent and costing 1500-3000 dollars, I believe, had under 1100 people in its (one) study for Covid. But there won't be a provisional waiver on a vaccine if there is adequate, approved, and available treatments. Pharmaceuticals are making bank on these vaccines.
They sure are.
Have you sent an email after this? Just checking. I have not received any new ones since.
Scary
https://vimeo.com/135669200