Journalists are supposed to be the standing pillars of free-speech. Their job is to journal the news, become the reporters of world events. To communicate. Nowadays, no longer do many of them follow their ideals of being provocateurs of free speech, but instead, act as the silencers.
Several journalists around the world spend the majority of their time fighting one another. They fight one another in an attempt to silence one another. Their job is to curtail the speech of their opposers in order to reach more people. Instead of focusing on writing great content and directly expanding their reach, many journalists now smear other journalists in hopes of getting them banned, so that they can be the only voices heard.
Luckily this has only made things worse for them. The ones who are smeared and silenced get a massive boost in traffic numbers. The Streisand effect will always be there to help the underdogs. Journalist bullies will always bump into a wall in their efforts to curtail free speech. That wall is the natural human spirit that seeks to maintain an open dialogue at all costs.
How have journalists been conspiring against free-speech? Well just recently, the web browser extension Dissenter was removed from Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome. This wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for your fellow journalists looking out for you. The Columbian Journalism Review, an organization that has been monitoring journalism since 1961, reached out to Firefox to remove Dissenter. They successfully convinced Chrome to remove dissenter too.
Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.
The CJR wrote a news piece that specifically targeted Dissenter. They labeled it as a place where hate speech can proliferate. What examples did they use? It was based off reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for the movie Captain Marvel. Apparently, the comments that were being written on Dissenter were sexist because it criticized the movie for having a female as the main character.
Mozilla responded to the story by stating, “Mozilla does not endorse hate speech, and we do not permit our platforms to be used to promote such content.” Chrome followed suit shortly thereafter. While the traditional Dissenter extension is no longer available from the extension galleries, their new browser is now ready for all.
Dissenter impressively has gathered 85,000 users who have altogether made 500,000 comments on 71,000 domains. Trying to silence something that has grown that big that quickly, over apparently sexist comments regarding a superhero movie, is not going to work.
Count Dankula is a YouTube comedian who makes entertaining parodies and rants on the state of political correctness and social justice warriors. He has over 500 thousand subscribers on YouTube and over 200 hundred thousand Twitter followers. Buzzfeed apparently didn’t like that, so they went in and got their hands dirty by reaching out to YouTube to silence him. After a large company like Buzzfeed reaches out and complains about you, it kind of makes it a big deal.
Count Dankula tweeted this in response the Buzzfeed’s interference with his channel and his livelihood, “So I wake up this morning, all happy that I hit 400k subs, I then see that I have a DM from a Buzzfeed reporter, asking about my monetization, I found this strange, so I checked, and @TeamYouTube have demonetized everything on my channel.”
I also mentioned about his livelihood…
“I realize a lot of people say to not do YouTube as a fulltime job, because they can pretty much fire you at any point, for any reason, sometimes no reason, but thanks to the courts and the media, I don’t have a choice, I literally can’t get a regular job.”
Dankula already had issues with his monetization on YouTube and on Patreon. Being a controversial speaker, maybe you could leave it at that. But Buzzfeed went ahead to put the final nail in the coffin because Buzzfeed is Buzzfeed, notoriously known for their hate of opposing world views and anything that tarnishes the precious image of a social justice warrior.
Dave Rubin an independent talk show host and comedian who has many guests on across the political spectrum for entertaining podcast style interviews. He was about to bring on Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend Indiana on for a show. Pete Buttigieg is running as a Democratic party candidate and is considered Christian Left. He was scheduled to appear on the Dave Rubin Show but was told to stay away, by Vox Media, Huffington Post, and Media Matters. The left essentially blocked the air holes of public discourse yet again.
Pete’s team gave in, in worrying that he was going to upset is followers. When the Huffington Post, NBC, Vox, Media Matters, and The Young Turks all make a commotion that you are going on someones show, that can bring in a lot of pressure. Bridget Phetasy even tweeted saying, “So Mayor Pete thinks he can beat Donald Trump, the emperor of all trolls—but yet caves to pressure from rando blue checks with small followings? Yeah, no. He’s already toast.”
Dave had this to tweet, “Congrats to Media Matters, Vox and HuffPo! @PeteButtigieg is passing on our interview. A shame, because I think he’s a decent man, we have some agreement, some disagreement, and we could’ve opened up a whole new audience to him. Have followed up, hopefully, they’ll reconsider”
When you are unwilling to engage the opposing side in even a conversation, you stand absolutely no chance. Running for President means you must appeal to both sides of the country. Already standing down by not going on Dave Rubin’s show which is the small leagues compared to where he is heading, is not a strong sign to show that he can become president.
Preventing the left and right coming together for dialogue helps no one, not even themselves. You would think after all their complaining you would at least be eager for at least some sort of debate. Ignoring even this basic protocol is akin to the height of ignorance.
Left-wing journalists are actively taking the role of policing free speech on the internet. We can see this happening on Twitter – professional journalists on their own time, managing and policing others who take an opposing political viewpoint to theirs.
How did Infowars get banned? It wasn’t because all the tech companies decided it was time to ban him, it was due to the media campaigning for him to be banned. For months prior to the ban, Infowars was facing publicized lawsuits by media companies, especially CNN. Every week there would be articles mentioning how Infowars is a dishonest news company and doesn’t deserve to be on air. The media companies forced the conversation to steer towards the banning of Alex Jones and Infowars because he was an easy target. Oliver Darcy of CNN even admitted on Twitter saying how it wasn’t the tech platforms who suddenly enforced their rules, it actually took weeks of campaigning from media outlets that Infowars was skirting the rules before they banned it.
A news organization called In The Now, who regularly reports on corrupt foreign affair practices, especially involving the U.S, was also a victim of news hit piece by CNN. In the news piece, CNN labeled In The Now as a Russian-backed viral video company that targets American millennials. After publishing this, they gave the report to Facebook mentioning all of the problems they had with In The Now, and shortly after they were banned.
CNN contacted Facebook on February 13, and Facebook informed CNN they were “contemplating doing something about labeling state-funded media,” according to Donie O’Sullivan, a CNN reporter who worked on the story. The media organization kept their story until Facebook took action on their “investigation”.
In The Now had garnered over 4 million Facebook followers until CNN barged in and flagged it. A public policy organization called the German Marshall Fund lead the efforts to get In The Now banned by pressuring CNN to write an article attacking In The Now. This is a U.S funded group, who has board members involved in the high levels of CIA and in the Iraq war.
BuzzFeed News recently brought into bad light a situation that was previously unscathed. A YouTube channel star named Soph, which features a 14-year-old girl talking on camera regarding politically correct issues and making fun of social justice warriors. She makes light fun out of these so-called sensitive matters and has so far almost reached 1 million subscribers.
BuzzFeed decided to write an article titled “YouTube’s Newest Far-Right, Foul-Mouthed, Red-Pilling Star Is A 14-Year-Old Girl.” In it, you can expect the worst criticism’s to being dished out to Soph, for taking a certain stance on political issues. Worst of all, her videos are all parody, meaning they are not even reals stances, just entertainment.
BuzzFeed described the channel as “tissue-thin incel evolutionary psychology, and reflexive misanthropy that could have been copied and pasted from a thousand different 4chan posts.” It turns out, writing stuff like this about someone, only makes them grow bigger. Soph gained an additional 50 000 subscribers following this hit piece. The only people they influence with their posts are the CEOs and higher-ups of big tech platforms.
By looking at all of these different cases, one thing is clear. Reporting content producers to the different tech platforms work, especially when you already have a name. They have to listen to you if you are CNN or BuzzFeed news because you have established authority.
These reports have been happening more and more, and have been successful and purging away innocent content creators with millions of followers. At some point will some of these run dry? It is the same pattern being repeated over and over. The left reporting the right for the same issues. This is not protecting people, this is bullying people for having dissimilar viewpoints and the end of free speech as we know it.