Congressional Testimony: The Leading Activists for Online Censorship Are Corporate Journalists

The New York Post protested decisions by Facebook and Twitter to suppress coverage of the Biden laptop, after the social media platforms concluded the data was unverified and of questionable origin. IMAGE: Business Insider/The New York Post

A hearing of the House Subcommittee focused on anti-trust and monopoly abuses examines the role of the corporate media in these growing pathologies.

14 March 2021

GLENN GREENWALD — There are not many Congressional committees regularly engaged in substantive and serious work — most are performative — but the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law is an exception. Led by its chairman Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and ranking member Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), it is, with a few exceptions, composed of lawmakers whose knowledge of tech monopolies and anti-trust law is impressive.

In October, the Committee, after a sixteen-month investigation, produced one of those most comprehensive and informative reports by any government body anywhere in the world about the multi-pronged threats to democracy posed by four Silicon Valley monopolies: Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. The 450-page report also proposed sweeping solutions, including ways to break up these companies and/or constrain them from controlling our political discourse and political life. That report merits much greater attention and consideration than it has thus far received.

The Subcommittee held a hearing on Friday and I was invited to testify along with Microsoft President Brad Smith; President of the News Guild-Communications Workers of America Jonathan Schleuss, the Outkick’s Clay Travis, CEO of the Graham Media Group Emily Barr, and CEO of the News Media Alliance David Chavern. The ostensible purpose the hearing was a narrow one: to consider a bill that would vest media outlets with an exemption from anti-trust laws to collectively bargain with tech companies such as Facebook and Google so that they can obtain a greater share of the ad revenue. The representatives of the news industry and Microsoft who testified were naturally in favor of this bill (they have been heavily lobbying for it) because it would benefit them commercially in numerous way (the Microsoft President maintained the conceit that the Bill-Gates-founded company was engaging in self-sacrifice for the good of Democracy by supporting the bill but the reality is the Bing search engine owners are in favor of anything that weakens Google). […]

3 Comments on Congressional Testimony: The Leading Activists for Online Censorship Are Corporate Journalists

  1. Actually the leading proponents of online censorship are Jews, especially the ADL — the ADL ‘partners’ with numerous tech companies to create ‘standards’ to limit the propagation of ‘hate’ (like ‘anti-Semitism’; of course the ADL decides what’s ‘anti-Semitic’), and the end result is censorship — ‘corporate journalists’ aren’t the reason you can no longer buy books on ‘Holocaust’ revisionism at Amazon, or watch videos about it on YouTube: it’s Jews who convinced those companies to drop that content.

    Numerous Twitter accounts that just directly retweeted (or quoted) what Jews on Twitter (and elsewhere) say about Whites (among other topics) have been deleted by Twitter; it’s basically impossible to have such an account there — ‘corporate journalists’ are not the reason for that.

    But Greenwald is a Jew so he is either unable or unwilling to say that.

    • >… it’s Jews who convinced those companies to drop that content.

      The ADL has a page on their website devoted to ‘Holocaust denial’:

      Online Holocaust Denial Report Card: An Investigation of Online Platforms’ Policies and Enforcement

      They brag about how their lobbying/pressure resulted in e.g. FB removing/blocking ‘Holocaust denial’ content (funny how despite being per the ADL “one of history’s most painstakingly examined and well-documented genocides”, doubt/skepticism about it is still fairly widespread and persistent).

      As someone on Twitter said: ‘Jews or free speech — choose one.’

      I don’t think there is a ‘corporate’ news site that has an entire section devoted to grading other websites on whether they remove/block revisionist content (or other kinds of ‘cyberhate’).

    • And censorship is not only a problem with establishment/mainstream media sites —, which presents itself as a dissident/alternative site, did not publish the following comment on a story re jury selection in the George Floyd trial, which also included a blurb about the reported $27m ‘wrongful death’ settlement the city of Minneapolis apparently reached with Floyd’s family:

      I’m sure the whole thing is a real circus freak show — I would not have the stomach to observe/report on it, even remotely. … Settlement for what? — so the city of Minneapolis, run by that beta Jew Jacob Frey who cried/behaved like a girl at Floyd’s funeral, couldn’t at least wait for the outcome of the trial to see if the police were in any way officially/legally liable/at fault for Floyd’s death? — the same thing happened in Louisville — it’s just disgusting the way government throws money at these underclass Blacks who are disproportionately criminal and do only menial work, i.e. they are a financial boat anchor around the country’s neck already.

      The boundaries of what you can say and how you can say it are becoming narrower and narrower in America — and re that issue, I do not see a lot of/enough difference between Republicans vs Democrats and mainstream vs alternative.

Post a Comment

Winter Watch

Discover more from Winter Watch

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading