Redstate writer Mike Miller wrote today that “[a]An ex-group of cyber and Defense, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Homeland Security, Defense, Intelligence, Homeland Security officers are calling for a National Security Review of Congressional legislation that would prevent the monopolization in Big Tech. [as] reported by investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald on Wednesday… .”
They argue? Watering down Big Tech’s power to censor is a threat to national security.
Media Research Center provides context on Big Tech’s actions and, if we take the logic into account, what former intelligence operatives believe those threats to national security to be. A new report by MRC shows that Big Tech has clamped down 646 times on Biden critics in the past two years. Discuss the New York Post’sHunter Biden’s laptop story features a lot in our curated content.
REPORT: Biden critics were revoked 646 times in two years by Big Tech. https://t.co/mZSg1LFIoU pic.twitter.com/LutUqkd049
— Free Speech America (@FreeSpeechAmer) April 21, 2022
Big Tech’s campaign to protect President Joe Biden and his agenda has continued unabated. Over the last two years, there were more than 640 instances of people criticizing Biden via social media. These 140 instances of Big Tech censoring individuals over the past two years included 140. New York Post’s Story by Hunter Biden, bombshell in the late 2020s
MRC Free Speech America tallied 646 cases in its CensorTrack database of pro-Biden censorship between March 10, 2020, and March 10, 2022. This is The tally included cases from Biden’s presidential candidacy to the present day.
The worst cases of censorship involved platforms targeting anyone who dared to speak about any subject related to the New York Post bombshell Hunter Biden story. The Post investigated Hunter Biden and the Biden family’s allegedly corrupt foreign business dealings. Big Tech’s cancellation of that story helped shift the 2020 election in Biden’s favor. Twitter secured the Post’saccount for 17 days. In addition, Twitter slapped a “warning label” on the GOP House Judiciary Committee’s website for linking to the Post story.
Other supposedly dangerous discussion involved those who talked about Biden’s role in the current inflation crisis.
Facebook censored Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, on March 15, simply for posting a video quoting Biden’s embarrassing statements on energy policy. Facebook placed an interstitial, or filter, over Heritage Action’s video, suppressing the post’s reach. Biden, along with officials from his administration explained how their policies would lead to higher gas prices in the video.
The MRC report points out that Biden’s tendency to invade private space and to use it to his advantage is the most verboten language.
But the largest category by far included users who dared to call out Biden’s notoriously creepy, touchy-feely behavior around women and children. The 232 cases of comedic memes, videos, or generic posts about Biden’s conduct composed more than one-third of CensorTrack’s total instances of users censored for criticizing the president.
The role of journalism has always been understood to be one of calling truth to power as a sort of extra check on government — the people’s check, if you will. But Big Tech platforms, while the playground of journalists, clearly don’t believe they operate under that rubric (and, let’s face, most of mainstream journalism seems to be following that lead if not leading the charge).
But for former intelligence analysts to declare any criticism of the sitting president (and just think back to the last four years of the Trump administration for comparison) somehow threatening enough tto demand nterference in a Congressional push to reign in Big Tech’s power is something straight out of a dysopian novel.
There’s been a great deal of grousing about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stripped a company of its special privileges after it tried to interfer through a public relations campaign in the state. Aren’t former representatives of the intelligence apparatus ProtectionBusinesses that restrict speech should behave the same as others? If one bothers you, shouldn’t the other?
DeSantis’s decision to strip Disney of all its extras appears to level the playing field with other Florida businesses, while Big Tech defense would at the very least attempt to grant companies special protections.
The point is, the left never even gets that far in its analysis because their desires are sophomoric and simple: they want speech they like amplified and speech they don’t like stricken from the record. Not to mention this strange push to pit the “authority” conferrerd on former members of government agencies against the ACTUAL authority Congress has to legislatively deal with potentially bad corporate actors. DeSantis, Congress and others are in this regard more similar than distinct.
In the meantime, the government flacks start to look increasingly like biased water carriers as the media reports.
About Post Author
