Archive for rumble

How To Survive Big Tech

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 13, 2021 by andelino

The largest technology companies in the United States don’t like you very much. Conservatives will have their voices silenced just like the dissenters in China.

So, what should you do to survive “The Purge”

Social Media

Start by recognizing that you can’t fix the tech platforms that are bent on eradicating your “Social Media” point-of-views. You’ll have to go elsewhere or be exiled. So consider alternative social media platforms focusing on freedom of speech like Parler, Gab, MeWee, Rumble, etc.

Search Engines

Google kicked Parler off its app store because it disagreed with posts that users published. Weak, lame, silly, petty. Yeah, but it is what it is. You can’t fix Google, so avoid it.

DuckDuckGo is a fantastic search engine, they don’t track you, don’t sell your data and do not have the algorithmic political bias that Google does. Go HERE to see how to change the search engine you use from Google to ANYTHING else.

Another great search engine is Brave, a fast, private and secure web browser for PC, Mac and mobile. Download now to enjoy a faster ad-free browsing experience that saves data and battery life by blocking tracking software.

Tech Choices

Apple and Google kicked free speech company Parler off of its app store. If you have an iPhone or a Pixel, you’re financially supporting their actions.

While Samsung still uses Google’s Android OS, picking a phone not made by Apple or Google nets the monopolistic demons much less revenue than buying their phones.

You can also “de-Google” your Android phone to completely release you from Big Tech’s grasp:

The ultimate idea is to make sure you aren’t stuck on a single platform, with a single provider, on a single device. You must decentralize your communications so that you can get the information you need.

While luxuriating in Tahiti, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made a shameful but bold decision: He removed thousands of conservative voices from his platform, including GrrrGraphics. You can follow GrrrGraphics on Gab with same ID @GRRRGRAPHICS.

Our mass violation? We were all pro-Trump. Dorsey “lied” and said we were promoting ”violence” while he allowed “hang Pence” messages to stay.

Not to be outdone, Jeff Bezos also “cleansed” the Twitter alternative, Parler, from his company’s cloud servers. Trump supporters are now being smeared as “terrorists” by the far left mega billionaires.

Throughout 2020, Facebook was busy “censoring” conservative voices on their platform. Mark Zuckerberg is good friends with China’s President Xi.

Zuckerberg speaks Chinese. He asked Xi to name his child. Zuckerberg clearly interfered with the election by refusing to allow any comments or links to Hunter’s notorious laptop. Facebook went the Hillary route of lying and said with zero proof that it was “Russian disinformation.”

Try using Google for any searches of conservative opinions and you’ll see page after page of leftist opinions stating why conservatives are wrong. Goggle does “evil” and it’s now nothing more than a “socialist propaganda arm” and not a search engine.

Many on the left claim it’s perfectly fine for these CEOs to burn conservative opinions. After all, they are private companies and can do whatever they want. Not exactly. They are publicly-held companies. Twitter’s stock got slammed the other day and rightfully so. Let’s hope the mega billionaires are all taken down a peg or two, but more importantly, we all need to point out the hypocrisy of the left for blatantly violating our First Amendment.

The lefty mega billionaires know their plans for us are unpopular. Their ideas don’t stand up in the marketplace of ideas, so they want to limit and control that marketplace.  They know this is not aligned with our Constitution, but they don’t care. They admire the “Chicoms” system more. Hence their naked display of reckless power.

They must be awfully “afraid” if they’re resorting to “silencing” millions of Americans.

Banning Conservatives From Existence Is a Bold and Dangerous Move
Facebook to Aggressively Remove All “Stop the Steal” Content
Ron Paul Says Facebook Blocked Him From Managing His Profile
The Outright Lies of Equality by Big Tech Organizations
The vilification and purge is not so much about Trump as it is about you

Ending Section 230  

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on December 9, 2020 by andelino

Ending Section 230 will hurt free speech on the Internet
By Andrea Widburg

President Trump announced that he intended to veto the “National Defense Authorization Act” if it doesn’t include a provision deleting Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.  Trump’s purpose is to clip the tech tyrants’ wings, something that badly needs doing. However, he’s going about it the wrong way and should rethink his announced plan.

Once upon a time, the internet was a place of freedom and creativity. The early internet companies offered platforms on which people could publish unmediated content. The companies were the equivalent of giant bulletin boards. No one expected them to police the content that people around the world placed on these bulletin board–like platforms.

Some of the first people to recognize the Internet’s promise were pornographers. The federal government had long regulated pornography on radio and television to protect minors from being exposed to it. In February 1996, Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). The CDA’s entire purpose was to criminalize knowingly exposing minors to internet pornography.

The CDA had a carve-out, however, for companies that only hosted other people’s content. Thus, the government could prosecute “XXX Pornography Company” for prohibited conduct, but it could not prosecute the company that provided the server on which XXX Pornography Co. operated. This carve-out is known as Section 230.  Its primary clause states:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Section 230 means that YouTube can’t be prosecuted if a third party puts up child pornography videos, and, if you have a WordPress blog, WordPress is not criminally liable if you try to have others join you in sedition. However, under Section 230, if WordPress starts having a say in the content (e.g., de-platforming The Conservative Treehouse because it dislikes its politics), WordPress ceases being a neutral provider.

Put another way, the Act distinguishes between being a publisher, with content control, and being a bulletin board.

We older folks remember a time when the social media providers, the video platforms, the email services, and all the other companies that gave ordinary people a voice had no say at all in how the ordinary people chose to use that voice. However, we’ve also seen how big tech companies have become more involved in controlling third party content. They delete content, censor it, de-platform people, add editorial comments, and generally exert enormous control over what third parties place on their sites.

The big tech companies are no longer neutral bulletin boards.  They are now active editors.

Much of the tech companies’ editing energy is directed at silencing or otherwise marginalizing conservative voices, from President Trump on down. A Media Research Center poll showed that shockingly large numbers of Biden voters said they would have switched their votes to Trump if they’d known three news stories that the tech companies aggressively silenced: “Biden’s alleged sexual assault, Biden’s corrupt partnership with his son, and Trump’s successful Middle East peace initiatives.”

Since the election, the tech tyrants have continued to editorialize and censor conservative content. Sites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, at a minimum, put warning labels on tweets, posts, or videos that do not conform to the Democrat view of the election (i.e., that Biden is the unquestioned “president-elect”). That’s at minimum. Frequently, people find their content deleted or that they’ve been de-platformed.

It’s no wonder, then, that Trump wants to clip the tech tyrants’ wings. His latest effort was a tweet in which he said that he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act unless it eliminated section 230:

“Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!” — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2020

Trump’s instincts are correct: the tech tyrants need to be reined in because, having taken control of the public square, they are systematically destroying the First Amendment. (Read more here.)

However, the answer is not to end Section 230. As it exists now, Section 230 protects smaller sites that openly host third-party content, such as BitChute, Parler, and Rumble. It no longer harms the tyrannical big sites, which have deep pockets and artificial intelligence to avoid Section 230’s reach. The big sites, therefore, agree with ending Section 230 because it will also destroy their competition.

The best approach is simply to say that, if the tech tyrants are going to act like publishers by editing content on their sites, they are no longer entitled to Section 230’s protections. They can then be sued and criminally prosecuted.

This video from “Styxhexenhammer666” provides more information about Trump’s tweet, which he still has time to correct:

%d bloggers like this: