Tech Censorship Delegitimizes The ElectionRobert Hampton
Big Tech censored a major newspaper last week in the service of its preferred presidential candidate. The New York Post’s bombshell report about Joe Biden’s failson Hunter would’ve been the biggest story in the country, complete with reporters grilling the Democratic candidate and every other outlet making it front-page news.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, most outlets decided this story was Russian “disinformation” and refused to treat it seriously. Tech giants took the extra step of ensuring no one could spread it on their platforms. Both Facebook and Twitter restricted access to it on its platform, with Twitter banning the link entirely and locking accounts that shared Hunter Biden memes. Both sites eventually let up on the restrictions, but the precedent was already set. Big Tech will stifle reporting if it threatens Biden.
The story is serious. It’s arguably more damaging to Biden than WikiLeaks was to Hillary Clinton. So far, the Hunter Biden’s hard drive — legally obtained after it was left and never picked up at a computer repair shop — shows strong evidence that he was involved in influence peddling with his dad, along with a whole host of other crimes and misdeeds. The story may well implicate the elder Biden in criminal activity and derail his candidacy. It could turn out to be the biggest October surprise in election history.
No wonder why the tech oligarchs and journalist class don’t want ordinary Americans to see it. The pretense behind the censorship was hilariously flimsy. Twitter claimed it blocked the URL because it doesn’t allow hacked or otherwise illegally-obtained material. This is the same company that allowed the New York Times’ story on Trump’s dubiously-obtained tax returns to trend for a week. A few years ago, the platform boosted hit pieces on a Trump donor based on hacked emails distributed by a foreign intelligence service. There are numerous examples of historic investigative work that relied on illicitly-obtained material that would likely run afoul of Twitter’s new policies. The Pentagon Papers, revered by journalists, were only publicized thanks to one whistleblower stealing them and releasing them to reporters. The whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, faced jail time for his actions.
The work of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden would also count under this framework, but Big Tech and journalists probably realize this. That’s the bad kind of journalism because it helps evil Putin and tarnishes our courageous CIA agents.
WikiLeaks’ role in the 2016 election haunts the tech giants and certainly informed their decision to suppress the reputable New York Post.
This is not the first, nor the last, attempt by the tech overlords to interfere in the election. They’ve blocked Trump ads, censored Trump tweets, suspended Trump campaign accounts, “fact-checked” truthful statements and declared them false, boosted thousands of anti-Trump articles and tweets, and donated heavily to Left-wing groups working to defeat Trump. Mark Zuckerberg has invested $400 million in election “infrastructure” throughout the country, even though this effort is supposed to be publicly funded. Conservatives rightfully fear this initiative — nobody puts down that much money and expects no return on his investment.
Tech censorship is one of the most blatant signs of an illegitimate election. Social media is the public forum of our day. The platforms have continually denied Trump and his supporters a fair place in these forums where the people take in news and information. Tech companies restrict access to the town squares of the 21st century to avoid a repeat of 2016.
Some believe Big Tech is doing this purely out of liberal political allegiance. There is some truth to that. There is plenty of evidence Silicon Valley overwhelmingly leans left. But that doesn’t prove the decisive factor. For years, Twitter and Facebook have resisted calls to censor Trump (but not others) over a desire to not be too political. They know they’re running a business and can’t (openly) alienate half the country.
Why? Part of it was due to their own employees revolting and demanding more change. But the bigger reason was the growing assumption Biden will win the election. The tech titans worry a President Biden will come down hard on them if they do not censor Trump. Biden wants to eliminate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a prized treasure for tech platforms. Section 230 grants tech platforms immunity from publisher liabilities, meaning they can’t get sued for libel and other material posted on their sites. Without Section 230, they would be held liable for said material. That would disrupt the giants’ whole model and effectively turn them into publishers like the New York Times. They would be even worse without that immunity. (Trump and Republicans want to revise Section 230 to better protect free speech).
The aggressive censorship of Trump is the tech giants telling Biden to not take away their privileges. They can be trusted to ensure another Trump never happens again — “please don’t turn us into publishers.”
It’s a gamble they’re willing to take. Of course, if Trump wins, they’re screwed. But they’re confident that won’t happen.
The suppression of the NY Post story further justifies Trump’s refusal to 100% commit to conceding. He’s been hit on this topic incessantly. He was asked at the first presidential debate if he would commit to a “peaceful transfer of power” if he loses the election. “We’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump said. “You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.”
The comments spared hysteric outrage from the press, Democrats, and even some Republicans. The public was treated to lectures about how all presidents must submit to “peaceful transfers of power,” whatever the results or the circumstances of the results. Nevermind that Left-wing luminaries such as Hillary Clinton are urging Joe Biden to never concede. Ignore the escalating evidence of voter fraud and mail-in balloting errors. Disregard the Left’s threats of violence and mass social instability if Trump loses. Forget about how the deep state conspired to delegitimize Trump’s first election. And don’t you dare bring up Big Tech malfeasance.
The real threat to our democracy is the tiny-handed Cheeto Man!
Trump is right to hold out accepting the election results. Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, promises to prosecute him if she got to the White House. Plenty of state and local district attorneys would love to do the same as well. Prominent Democrats and liberals are already calling for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to punish the president and his supporters. The institutions are wielding their immense power to deny the historic American people the right to choose the president.
The elites are doing their best to steal this election. Trump should not make it easier for them. He can point to tech giants’ election interference as a reason to carry on his fight after Election Day. If he concedes without a fight, his political legacy will be over and he may very well end his days in jail.
There’s only one choice for Trump: fight.
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Good Article Mr. Hampton,
Tucker has been on this Hunter laptop story for the last several days. What I don’t understand is why this is really new. True, it does corroborate what we already knew and what Tucker was talking about 2 or 3 months ago. But the youtube video of Joe Biden bragging about how he threatened to withhold the aid to the Ukrainian government unless they fired the prosecutor involved in the Burisma case has been around for quite a while and Tucker played it more than once on his show at the time. This, to me, seems to be a sufficient smoking gun to destroy Joe Biden’s chances for victory. This latest laptop stuff is mere frosting on the cake in my opinion.
If an alien who knew nothing appeared on Earth and read your article and came away with your theory about Biden, I don’t think he would come away well informed on the subject.
You’re saying Twitter and others go to considerable lengths to interfere with pro-Trump/anti-Biden material because even though Biden has said he wants to change this internet law in a way that doesn’t favor them, they wan’t Biden to go easy on them.
It doesn’t make much sense when you frame it like that, and kind of a side note: but it won’t be Biden himself making any decision because he is incapable, others will make the decisions.
But we all saw what happened immediately after the 2016 election. The elite media declared that ‘fake news’ had swayed the election, and that Trump was actually in cahoots with Putin who was trying to manipulate the election result. And then a sword of Damocles/neutering was put over his presidency with this bs investigation into him.
For some considerable time Jewish groups have been pressuring these tech companies to censor. They have been building a case that a vote for Trump is a vote for bigotry and hatred, and that pro-Trump speech is actually hate speech.
The tech companies have been pressured, maneuvered and to some extent emotionally manipulated into being part of a conspiracy to make sure Trump doesn’t get elected because Trump or Trumpism = threatening energies to Jews. I suppose you could argue these tech companies hope for some payoff down the line for doing this and maybe that’s the case you’re making.
We can always infer a few basic things without knowing everything. We can infer that the pressure to censor Trump and pro-Trump stuff is bigger than the pressure not to censor for instance.
And then the source of the pressure is not esoteric. We see it everyday in the NYT, WP, CNN etc complaining about ‘internet hate’, about ‘Trump being supported by QAnon’, ‘conspiracy theories bolstering Trump’ and so on. You can see it in these ‘grilling’ sessions the US gov has, where the tech companies get softball questions and basically just sit there and lie for 2 hours. But Jews on these committees are open about what they see as the crisis. The crisis is ‘hate speech’ and ‘Trump dividing the nation’ and so on.
You can’t rule out CIA/intelligence and all that stuff having hand. But who is setting the policies for the TLAs ? It’s not Biden. It’s Jews in positions of power and it’s organized Jewry that have pressured these tech companies into compliance.
Unfortunately there are those people like Jack Dorsey who are just so unable to construct a political thought for themselves other that what gives them short term dopamine hits and makes them feel part of the system. Dorsey is regularly photographed with BLM. He’s got the ADL telling him he needs to ‘take a stand’ and ‘be on the right side of history’. Sure he’s signed up to the agenda.
Then there is a kind of left/liberal smugness among blue haired lesbians who work at Twitter about trying to get rid of Trump. But they are not setting the policy from the top down. The policy to deny Trump fair coverage and publicity and interaction on social media is being hammered into these companies by Jews.
If they are offering a payoff down the line to these tech companies about their businesses in the form of lighter laws and so on maybe, but we might as well be clear about what the problem actually is.
Simple. If Trump wins and wants to change section 230, all he can really do is tweet about it, since the permanent government is very much against him. If Biden wins, he can direct the permanent government to change section 230. There’s little danger in angering Trump. It’s very dangerous to anger Biden.
“it’s organized Jewry that have pressured these tech companies into compliance.”
The tech companies *ARE* “organized Jewry.”
Google was founded by Sergey Brin – an open Israeli-first Zionist Jew, and Larry Page, not only a Jew, but worked directly with the Hillary Clinton state department to overthrow Arab governments hostile to Israel. Eric Schmidt, an open Zionist Jew, former CEO, Chairman, and major investor in Google, gives speech in Israel and is instrumental in moving technology and tech jobs from America to Israel.
Mark Zuckerberg – openly Zionist Jew, who was assisted in stealing Facebook by Larry Summers, the Jew who ran Harvard university and helped the Jewish criminal “oligarchs” take over Russia while he was Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton.
“Big Tech” *IS* organized Jewry – they are the same groups.
Twitter’s Jack Dorsey isn’t Jewish, but just look at the major investors and major advertisers.
This happened in just the last 20 years, and virtually no one has told the story, either. Certainly, the “Jew-aware” Right has never seriously traced this development.
I have the polar opposite conceptual framework about such things. And by that, I mean cynicism.
I think that tech is very overrated when it comes to the outcomes of electoral politics. I think that, even at this late date, it all depends on old fashioned time honored retail effects, the pavement pounding, the baby kissing, the door knocking.
For almost eight years, we’ve lived under a lie that tech swings elections. That grew out of Obama’s re-election in 2012, and (at first) how it was attributed to his online strategy. But as we learned in the summer of 2013, the targets of the online efforts had lower turnout rates in 2012 over 2008, and that the group that did the most to help him eke out re-election were middle aged to elderly black women, a group that is highly unlikely to see Facebook advertising. However, the lie persisted.
I also think the reason why FB, Twitter, YT, etc. “blame” themselves for electing Trump is for the same reason that journalists “blame” themselves for starting the Spanish-American War. It’s a tactic of braggadocio disguised as contrition. Puffing up their own power while pretending to be sorry about the consequences. Again, I don’t think that FB, Twitter and YT elected Trump in 2016, because it all came down to the higher or lower turnout rates of demographics that FB, Twitter and YT don’t much reach. And besides, FB, Twitter and YT were almost as bad about their deleting and deplatforming in 2016 as they are this year, in the anti-Trump direction. That, and journalists didn’t start the Spanish-American War: The McKinley White House knew full well what the Hearst papers (et al.) were up to, and ignored them. The United States did start the SAW in the long run, and, as we can see in the current year, it had deleterious consequences. But it popped off for reasons other than “yellow journalism.”
In two weeks, the whole “tech influences elections bigly” lie could totally be blown out of the water for even the most dense and oblivious to see.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.