+ Reply to Thread
Page 57 of 79 FirstFirst 1 7 47 57 67 79 LastLast
Results 1,121 to 1,140 of 1569

Thread: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

  1. Link to Post #1121
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    On internet censorship as it applies to the common user:

    My recent visits page is blank, showing only one item...a two minute review of the Globe and Mail site, here in Canada - hoping at least there I might find some counter to the liberal slant on the internet mainstream.

    I am very proud of this fact, in fact.

    Since I am online a fair bit each day, it is telling how much 'official propaganda' I subject myself to daily - virtually none.

    It is also interesting that Avalon is not listed on my recently visited page either. Nor is Breitbart, Fox, Gateway Pundit, Real America's Voice, RSBN, Rebel News, Alex Jones, Gab, Truth Social, Gettr, and several others.

    The propaganda is so thick, and so obvious, I can tell who is compliciit just by my recently veiwed list...

    If its not on the list it is not an officially sanctioned news outlet.


    Further, there are sites I cannot get into at all, as they are somehow blocked from my ability to participate. I cannot log into my account at Gettr for instance. I cannot watch the Hunter Biden movie, no matter what avenue I try. I have problems funding my favorite sites - something always seems to go wrong...

    I cannot visit Truth Social at all. No matter what I try to do I get the loading page and a message that Truth Social is not taking new members at this time...

    Many times my streaming shows will freeze at the most inopportune moments.
    I miss updates from my sites, often receiving them later than I should or not at all.

    And if it is important personal messages, well, I might get them as much as a week later, with the time and date stamp clearly proving the massive delay.

    It is almost as if I am being personally targeted.


    Luckily, I am not subject to random bouts of paranoia, or I might feel threatened.
    Such a childish, blatantly obvious, ridiculous, excruciatingly annoying, brutal, attack on the free interchange of ideas.

    It makes it easy to explain the way all our institutions have been captured and turned against their own founding principles. It is a travesty of epic proportions.

    I look forward to the day in the near future when this all blows up in their faces.

    The truth bomb is going to be the penultimate MOAB...(mother of all bombs)
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), earthdreamer (3rd October 2022), Johnnycomelately (19th September 2022), Kryztian (19th September 2022), Mark (Star Mariner) (17th September 2022), mountain_jim (17th September 2022)

  3. Link to Post #1122
    Avalon Member mountain_jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th December 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Thanks
    59,362
    Thanked 77,728 times in 8,598 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/19...e-free-speech/

    Federal Court Deals Major Blow To Big Tech And Sets Up SCOTUS To Restore Free Speech

    BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND
    SEPTEMBER 19, 2022

    Supreme Court review of these laws will prove a victory for conservatism, as the originalist majority can cast aside evolving standards and return to the roots of the First Amendment.

    ATexas law prohibiting social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, from discriminating against users based on their speech does not violate the First Amendment, a federal appellate court held on Friday. Conservatives, whose speech represents the overwhelming target of censorship, are cheering the Fifth Circuit’s decision in NetChoice v. Paxton. A different federal court, however, struck down Florida’s law prohibiting Big Tech from censoring political speech, setting up a Supreme Court review in the near future.

    NetChoice v. Paxton

    In September of 2021, Texas passed House Bill 20, a state statute that regulates Big Tech companies — i.e., social media websites with more than 50 million monthly users. Before HB 20 went into effect, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, trade associations representing social media sites, sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, arguing Section 7 and Section 2 of the law violated the First Amendment.

    Section 7 of HB 20 regulates the platforms’ ability to censor users’ posts, prohibiting censorship — defined broadly to include blocking, de-boosting, reducing visibility, and other mechanisms of discrimination — based on the viewpoint of the post. This provision applies to censorship of users who reside in, do business in, or share or receive expression in Texas.

    HB 20 allows for the continuing censorship of illegal speech as well as posts related to the sexual exploitation of children, harassment of survivors of sexual abuse, speech that directly incites criminal activity, or posts that consist of specific threats of violence targeting “a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge.”

    Under the law, illegally censored users or the Texas attorney general may sue Big Tech giants that violate Section 7, but they cannot recover monetary damages; rather, a court may only issue a ruling declaring that a violation has occurred and enter an injunction ordering the platform to comply with the law. If successful, costs and attorney’s fees are also recoverable.

    The platforms also challenged certain disclosure and operational requirements established in Section 2 of HB 20, such as Texas’s statutory mandate that the tech companies disclose “how they moderate and promote content and publish an ‘acceptable use policy.’” Section 2 also requires platforms to publish a “biannual transparency report” that provides statistics detailing content-moderation decisions and the creation of a complaint-and-appeal system. Only the Texas attorney general may enforce Section 2, and again, damages are not recoverable.

    In challenging HB 20, the tech companies argued that the Texas statute violates their First Amendment right to free speech, which Supreme Court precedent makes clear includes the right not to speak. The tech companies then argued that the act of hosting (or rejecting) speech is its own protected speech, and thus the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in that “speech.” Section 2’s disclosure requirements likewise violate the First Amendment, the tech giants argued, because the mandates are “unduly burdensome.”

    A federal district court judge agreed with the tech companies’ arguments and in December entered a preliminary injunction against Texas, prohibiting enforcement of the law. Texas then sought a “stay” of the trial court’s injunction, asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to freeze the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allow HB 20 to go into effect.

    While the Fifth Circuit granted the stay, the United States Supreme Court “vacated” or overturned the stay, keeping the preliminary injunction in place pending resolution of the appeal. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court’s vacatur of the stay, and in doing so previewed the importance and complexity of this case. More on that later.

    On Friday, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that HB 20 did not violate the First Amendment. Trump-appointed Judge Andrew Oldham authored the 90-page lead opinion that methodically analyzed an array of complex constitutional arguments posited by the tech giants.

    The main dispute in NetChoice v. Paxton concerned the application of Supreme Court precedent “that instructs that the freedom of speech includes ‘the right to refrain from speaking at all.’” So, as the Fifth Circuit held, “the State may not force a private speaker to speak someone’s else message.” Conversely, the Fifth Circuit stressed, precedent teaches that a “State can regulate conduct in a way that requires private entities to host, transmit, or otherwise facilitate speech.”

    The Fifth Circuit then summarized the interplay of these two principles by explaining that “First Amendment doctrine permits regulating the conduct of an entity that hosts speech, but it generally forbids forcing the host itself to speak or interfering with the host’s own message.” In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth Circuit analyzed five Supreme Court decisions, beginning with Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo.

    Government Interference May Backfire

    To understand Friday’s opinion and, more importantly, the broader implications of anti-censorship laws, it is necessary to gain a basic familiarity with the Miami Herald decision and the other cases the Fifth Circuit analyzed in NetChoice v. Paxton.

    In Miami Herald, the Supreme Court held that a Florida statute that required newspapers to grant political candidates the right to equal space to reply to criticism violated the First Amendment rights of the publisher. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court stressed that the newspapers’ decisions concerning the size, content, and treatment of public issues and public officials involved editorial control and judgment protected from state interference by the First Amendment.

    Conversely, in PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, the Supreme Court held that the state could require privately owned shopping centers to allow individuals to distribute political literature without violating the mall owners’ First Amendment rights. In upholding California’s mandate, the high court reasoned that PruneYard did not involve the concerns present in Miami Herald, namely forced speech through the state telling a newspaper what to print.

    Next up was Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. Public Utilities Commission of California. In that case, a plurality of the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional California’s mandate that the utility company let third-party groups include newsletters in the billing statements Pacific Gas sent to customers. In Pacific Gas, the Supreme Court distinguished PruneYard, by stressing that allowing the third-parties’ speech did not affect the shopping center owners’ exercise of their own right to speech, while mandating the inclusion of a third-party’s newsletter affected Pacific Gas’s ability to showcase its own speech, relative to the voice of its opponents.

    The fourth case the Fifth Circuit found relevant was Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston. In Hurley, a Massachusetts state court held that the St. Patrick’s Day parade organized by the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council qualified as a public accommodation under state law, and thus the private organization could not exclude an organization of Irish-American gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from marching in the parade. The parade organizers challenged the state decision, arguing it violated the federal constitutional right to free speech.

    The United States Supreme Court agreed, holding that the parade constituted a “form of expression” that receives First Amendment protection. “Like a composer,” the Supreme Court reasoned, the parade organizers select “expressive units of the parade from potential participants,” conveying, in total, a message of their own.

    The final case found relevant by the Fifth Circuit majority was the Supreme Court’s decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment against a First Amendment challenge. Congress passed the Solomon Amendment in response to law schools banning military recruiters; the Solomon Amendment denied federal funding to schools that refused to provide military recruiters the same access to students granted to other employers.

    In a unanimous decision, the court held that Congress could have required such equal access without running afoul of the First Amendment, and therefore, removing federal funding from educational institutions that violated the Solomon Amendment did not violate the First Amendment.

    After detailing these five decisions, the Fifth Circuit majority concluded that precedent teaches that for a “speech host” to mount a successful First Amendment challenge, he must show that “the challenged law either (a) compels the host to speak or (b) restricts the host’s own speech.” For instance, in Miami Herald, the challenged law mandated newspapers “speak” by publishing a politician’s response, and in Hurley, the law required the parade organizers to alter the message conveyed by the parade, while in Pacific Gas, the state’s requirement that the utility company dispatch third parties’ newsletters restricted the company’s own ability to speak.

    Conversely, in both PruneYard and Rumsfeld, speech was neither compelled nor restricted. According to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in PruneYard, allowing access to the mall did not affect the property owner’s speech: The owners were neither forced to communicate a message nor prevented from engaging in their own speech. Likewise, in Rumsfeld, the educational institutions required to provide equal access were not forced to speak nor deterred from speaking on their own.

    This analysis led the Fifth Circuit to conclude that HR 20 passed constitutional muster, with the majority finding that the law more closely resembled the situations in PruneYard and Rumsfeld. Specifically, HR 20 required the tech companies to provide equal access and nothing more. The users’ speech also does not become the tech companies’ speech, the majority stressed, and the platforms remain free to speak as they see fit, by disavowing or distancing themselves from posts. In fact, as the Fifth Circuit stressed, several platforms already do this by adding disclaimers to users’ posts.

    Judge Edith Jones stressed in a separate concurrence that from PruneYard and Rumsfeld it follows “that in arbitrarily excluding from their platforms the makers of speech and preventing disfavored speech from reaching potential audiences (‘censoring,’ in the comprehensive statutory term), they are not themselves ‘speaking’ for First Amendment purposes.” The Reagan appointee added that “it is ludicrous to assert,” as the tech giants do, that by prohibiting the social media sites from censoring users’ speech based on their viewpoint, HR 20 curtails the platforms’ “own speech.”

    In her concurrence, Jones added a further analysis of HR 20, viewing it through the lens of the Supreme Court’s decision in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC. In that case, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a federal statute that mandated cable companies “devote a specified portion of their channels to the transmission of local commercial and public broadcast stations.”

    Jones noted that while the Turner court concluded “that selecting a limited repertoire of cable channels to transmit constitutes First-Amendment-protected speech,” the Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the statute. In doing so, the high court distinguished both Pacific Gas & Electric and Miami Herald, stressing that the “must-carry” cable requirements did not target specific content and did not force cable operators to modify their own speech. Further, the Turner court held that viewers were unlikely to consider the speech aired as the cable company’s speech. And finally, the court found it significant that the cable operator’s selection of channels controlled what information households had available to them.

    In her concurrence, Jones noted that these same points compel the conclusion that HR 20 does not infringe the First Amendment rights of social media platforms.

    The third judge on the panel, Leslie H. Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed with portions of the majority opinion, but on the central question of “whether social media platforms engage in First Amendment-protected expression when they moderate their users’ content,” Southwick dissented. In his view, the First Amendment protects the tech companies’ censorship of user content.

    With the panel split 2-1 in NetChoice v. Paxton, the tech giants could seek rehearing by the full court, followed by requesting review by the Supreme Court. Or the companies could seek review of the Paxton case by the Supreme Court immediately. No matter which tack the companies take, two circumstances suggest the high court will agree to hear an appeal of the case.

    Circuit Split with NetChoice v. Moody

    First, the Fifth Circuit’s decision on Friday creates a circuit split with the 11th Circuit, which in May of 2022 in NetChoice v. Moody, concluded that similar portions of Florida’s Big Tech anti-censorship statute violated the First Amendment. That statute, Senate Bill 7072, prohibits social media companies from banning political candidates from their platforms, or manipulating with algorithms content and material posted by or about a political candidate. SB 7072 further prohibits the censorship, deplatforming, or restricting of posts by “journalistic enterprises,” as defined by statute. Additionally, the statute requires tech companies to apply any censorship, deplatforming, or banning standards in a consistent manner among its users, and defines the posting of a disclaimer to posts as “censorship.”

    lorida’s SB 7072 also imposes disclosure requirements on the tech companies, requiring them to publish the standards used to make censorship decisions. The companies must also give users notice seven days prior to any censorship, with the notice providing a “thorough rationale explaining the reason for the censor[ship] and a precise and thorough explanation of how the social media platform became aware of the content that triggered its decision.” (Notice is not required for the platform to remove obscene material.)

    In analyzing whether Florida’s statute violated the First Amendment, the 11th Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Kevin Newsom, a Trump appointee, first stressed that “the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a private entity’s choices about whether, to what extent, and in what manner it will disseminate speech — even speech created by others — constitute ‘editorial judgments’ protected by the First Amendment.” The federal appellate court then considered the same precedent analyzed by the Fifth Circuit in the Paxton case and held that “social-media platforms’ content-moderation decisions constitute the same sort of editorial judgments” as involved in Miami Herald, Pacific Gas, Turner, and Hurley.

    While Florida argued that SB 7072 does not implicate the tech companies’ First Amendment rights because those companies are merely “hosts” of speech, like the mall in PruneYard and the higher ed institutions in Rumsfeld, the 11th Circuit rejected that argument. “The State’s reliance on PruneYard and [Rumsfeld] and its attempts to distinguish the editorial-judgment line of cases are unavailing,” the federal appellate court concluded in upholding the preliminary injunction entered by the lower court that barred enforcement of SB 7072.

    The 11th Circuit further concluded that the disclosure mandates of SB 7072 “indirectly burden platforms’ editorial judgment by compelling them to disclose certain information.” Such laws, to be constitutional, the federal appellate court explained, must not be “unduly burdensome,” such that they would “chill protected speech.” Mandating that tech companies provide seven-days’ notice with detailed specificity would be practically impossible, the companies argued, and the court agreed the burden imposed by the law was “undue.” Accordingly, the 11th Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction’s ban on enforcing those portions of Florida’s law as well.

    While Florida has yet to seek review by the United States Supreme Court, in August it requested permission to extend the time to file its petition for review. Justice Thomas granted that request, giving Florida until September 21, 2022, to file its request for review by the Supreme Court, called a petition for a writ of certiorari. With the Fifth Circuit’s decision last week upholding Texas’s law, the split in the circuits makes Florida’s forthcoming argument for review by the high court even stronger.

    Likewise, the eventual petition for review of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Paxton by the tech companies will prove enticing for the Supreme Court because it presents the opportunity for the justices to consider the vagaries between the statutes. And, here, a second fact suggests the high court is ready to explore these issues now, namely the three-justice dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay in the Paxton case.

    As noted above, Justice Alito authored that dissent, which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. While on the surface the only question before the court was whether the Texas law should be allowed to go into effect pending the appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the dissent indicates at least three members of the Supreme Court are ready to hear the case.

    “This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review,” the dissent began. “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day,” Alito continued.

    Then, after summarizing the Texas law and highlighting the Supreme Court’s prior decisions in Hurley, Miami Herald, PruneYard, and Turner, Alito noted that “the law before us is novel,” as are Big Tech’s business models, and “it is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”

    With this dissent, then, we have three justices on the record saying the underlying issues merit review by the Supreme Court. And given the conflicting positions of the Fifth and 11th Circuits, it seems likely that at least one more justice will vote to accept at least one appeal, but more likely both, reaching the required four votes necessary for the Supreme Court to accept an appeal.

    Conservatives should champion review by the Supreme Court, but not because of any particular outcome. On the contrary, while clamping down on Big Tech’s censorship may prove attractive to conservatives, Hurley, Miami Herald, PruneYard, Turner, Pacific Gas, and Rumsfeld all illustrate that the government interjecting itself into the operations of private operations proves risky. We may not mind when it is Texas and Florida passing laws that seem beneficial to the right, but the same principles will apply when it is leftists in California or New York enacting the statutes.

    Supreme Court review of these laws will nonetheless prove a victory for conservatism, no matter the outcome, because it will provide an opportunity for the originalist majority to cast aside the evolving standards and confusing analyses adopted over the years and return to the roots of the First Amendment. What that will mean for the Texas and Florida statutes remains to be seen.


    Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
    Last edited by mountain_jim; 19th September 2022 at 19:15.
    I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson

    The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)

    (avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.)

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mountain_jim For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), Johnnycomelately (19th September 2022), lisalu (19th September 2022)

  5. Link to Post #1123
    Avalon Member mountain_jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th December 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Thanks
    59,362
    Thanked 77,728 times in 8,598 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    https://slaynews.com/news/dan-bongin...-to-go-public/

    Dan Bongino Gets Huge Win, Proves Doubters Wrong as Video-Sharing Site Rumble Completes Merger to Go Public

    David HawkinsSeptember 19, 2022



    Fox News host Dan Bongino has scored a huge win over Big Tech and proved the doubters wrong as his video-sharing site Rumble has now gone public.

    Bongino has an equity stake in the pro-free speech YouTube alternative platform.

    Rumble issued a statement that said:

    “Rumble Inc. (NASDAQ:RUM) (“Rumble”), the video-sharing platform, announced that after successfully completing its business combination with blank check company CF Acquisition Corp. VI (NASDAQ: CFVI) (“CFVI”), trading of Rumble’s common shares will begin on the NASDAQ stock exchange today.


    “At market open, the ticker symbol will switch from ‘CFVI’ to ‘RUM’ for the company’s common shares.

    “While stock ticker symbols can be an afterthought, for Rumble, ‘RUM’ holds a special connection to the company’s mission to protect a free and open internet.

    “It’s a little-known fact that rum was one of the many catalysts of the American Revolution due to unrest created by the British-imposed Sugar Act of 1764.


    “The Act imposed regulations and taxes on molasses, a key ingredient used to produce rum. During the colonial era, rum was among the most-consumed alcoholic drinks in America.

    “Without rum, the colonists may never have fought to win the freedom that Americans enjoy today – the very freedom that Rumble exists to protect.

    As a mission-driven company, we do everything with a purpose,” said Rumble Chairman and CEO Chris Pavlovski.

    “As we considered available tickers, the history of rum as a symbol of freedom was the perfect match for Rumble.”


    https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/...LoYz2AzPaM88Mg



    According to The Washington Examiner:

    Conservative radio host Dan Bongino has acquired an equity stake in the online video-sharing platform Rumble with hopes of competing with YouTube by establishing a platform where free speech is protected.

    “We need a home,” Bongino told the Washington Examiner in an exclusive interview.

    “We need somewhere to go where conservative views won’t be discriminated against.”

    Bongino, who has 600K subscribers on YouTube, says 80% of his daily episodes of The Dan Bongino Show have been demonetized for its conservative content.

    “I’m sick of it, and I wanted to do something about it.”


    Launched in 2013, Rumble “provides video creators a way host, manage, distribute, create over-the-top feeds and monetize their content,” according to its website.

    On Monday, Bongino plans on posting The Dan Bongino Show exclusively to Rumble before uploading it to his YouTube channel.

    As of September, The Dan Bongino Show is the 12th most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts, according to podcastinsights.com.

    “YouTube is crushing conservative voices. I’m not going to sit around and take their bull**** anymore,” Bongino said Wednesday.

    “They think alienating & discriminating against major content producers is a long-term business plan. It’s not. I’ll have a big announcement about this fight on my show tomorrow.”
    I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson

    The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)

    (avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.)

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to mountain_jim For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), ClearWater (20th September 2022), ExomatrixTV (20th September 2022), Johnnycomelately (19th September 2022), lisalu (19th September 2022), Mark (Star Mariner) (20th September 2022)

  7. Link to Post #1124
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • UN Declares Conspiracy Theorists "Public Enemy no.1"

    The United Nations has declared war on conspiracy theories, describing the rise of conspiracy thinking as “worrying and dangerous”, and providing the public with a toolkit to “prebunk” and “debunk” anybody who dares to suggest that world governments are anything but completely honest, upstanding and transparent. The UN also warns that George Soros, the Rothschilds and the State of Israel must not be linked to any “alleged conspiracies.” UNESCO has teamed up with Twitter, the European Commission and the World Jewish Congress to launch the campaign dubbed #ThinkBeforeSharing: Stop the spread of conspiracy theories. The UN wants you to know that events are NOT “secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent” and if you encounter anybody who thinks the global elite are conspiring to consolidate power and dictate global events, you must take action. According to UNESCO, “if you are certain you have encountered a conspiracy theory” on the internet then you must post a relevant link to a “fact-checking website” in the comments. (Never mind the fact that “fact checkers” are mostly untrained and unqualified hacks performing “fact checks” from their bedroom in between posting far-left political content and getting high.) UNESCO also provide advice for anyone who encounters a real live conspiracy theorist in the flesh. According to the UN agency, you must not under any circumstances be lured into an argument with the conspiracy theorist. “Any argument may be taken as proof that you are part of the conspiracy and reinforce that belief” and the conspiracy theorist will probably “argue hard to defend their beliefs.“ Remarkably, hidden in the fine print, UNESCO admit that conspiracy theories do exist. Under the heading “What is a real conspiracy?” the United Nations bureaucrats explain that “real conspiracies large and small DO exist.” According to the UN, it’s only a REAL conspiracy theory if it’s “unearthed by the media.” There is just one problem with the UN’s definition of a “real” conspiracy theory. The media has been fully bought and paid for by the elite. And it’s the elite who are conspiring against the masses. Ever heard of Operation Mockingbird? In the 1960s you would get called a conspiracy theorist if you dared to suggest that the CIA was spying on journalists and controlling the mainstream media. In reality, this is exactly what was happening. Operation Mockingbird was a CIA operation that spied on members of the Washington press corps in 1963, 1972 and 1973. They also paid journalists to publish CIA propaganda. Wiretapping of US citizens is against CIA code, but this is what they did. So sure, we should be trusting everything the media and fact checkers say, right? It’s not like they have a history of being manipulated by shadowy three-letter agencies and the global elite, right? In 2013, Obama signed legislation that repealed the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The Smith-Mundt Act was a so-called anti-propaganda law that prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2 2013, Obama quietly and deceitfully changed the law, meaning that the US government and the CIA could legally propagandize US citizens. Strangely, the mainstream media don’t like to acknowledge this fact. But it suits government agencies and the United Nations down to the ground. Of course they will tell you to place blind trust in the mainstream media and fact checkers. Regardless of how many times they get proved wrong, time and time again. Hunter Biden’s Latpop from Hell, anyone? It took the media more than a year to admit that it was a real thing. For a whole year the media was telling us that the laptop story was “Russian disinformation” and fact checkers were censoring social media, scrubbing it clean of any trace of the Laptop From Hell story, for fear that it would damage Biden Sr.’s presidential run. Mainstream media is not a check on power. The very system requires complicity. Governments, corporations, global institutions like the United Nations… they know how to play the media game. They know how to control the news narrative. They know how to manipulate and control the masses. They feed official scoops, official accounts, interviews with so-called experts. They breed fear because fear breeds compliance. If you want to challenge power, you will be pushed to the margins. The CIA invented the term “conspiracy theorist” in the 1950s in order to denigrate those who dared to ask questions outside of the box and challenge the corrupt system. The United Nations’ war on conspiracy theorists is more of the same. They want to shame those among us who dare to ask questions and question the official narrative. Ask yourself, when was the last time the media unearthed a conspiracy? Also ask yourself, when was the last time the media covered up a conspiracy?
    • WEF Hires Millions of ‘Info Warriors’ To Delete the Internet of Alternative Views:

    The World Economic Forum (WEF) has announced it has recruited hundreds of thousands of “information warriors” to control the internet, policing social media and forums for “misinformation” and conspiracy content which will then be systematically shut down. According to Klaus Schwab’s WEF, misinformation on the internet is an “infodemic” that is “potentially deadly” and requires a “cure.” The definition of misinformation, according to the WEF, is anything they disagree with. This means the information warriors will essentially be engaged in the act of shutting down dissent. Conspiracy forums and Youtube comments sections are being targeted by so-called “digital first responders” who pretend to be ordinary users of the platform, but are actually working to disrupt proceedings and support the ideology of Klaus Schwab’s WEF. Announcing the news on a WEF podcast, UN communications director Melissa Fleming said “So far, we’ve recruited 110,000 information volunteers, and we equip these information volunteers with the kind of knowledge about how misinformation spreads and ask them to serve as kind of ‘digital first-responders’ in those spaces where misinformation travels.” The WEF are subliminally influencing the masses in order to push their narratives onto the people. Also on the podcast, mainstream journalist Mark Little sets out potential solutions to the so-called “infodemic.” “I’ve started to see the spread of misinformation as a global health crisis,” Little tells World Vs Virus. “Misinformation is happening within our friends and families. So we have to find strategies to, first of all, recognize it. And, secondly, as active citizens, just like we wear masks to protect others, we need to be the good citizen, the active vector fighting back in our daily lives.” The World Economic Forum is not the only globalist organization setting its sights on controlling the narrative on social media by unleashing hundreds of thousands of “information warriors.” A global influence campaign funded by the Israeli government had a $1.1 million budget last year, a document obtained by The Electronic Intifada shows. According to the leaked documents, the state of Israel employs an army of 15,000 people to “influence foreign publics” and they maintain three offices in three different countries solely dedicated to controlling the narrative on the internet. And Google’s Jigsaw unit sponsors a RAND report that recommends “infiltrating and subverting” online conspiracy forums from within. According to the report, the best way to subvert conspiracy forums is by “planting authoritative messaging wherever possible.” So what is “authoritative messaging”? If you have spent any time on forums lately, you might have noticed that when an interesting or explosive topic is created, the thread is immediately swarmed by users leaving messages disparaging the original post, picking it apart, and basically finding any possible way to cast doubt on its legitimacy. This type of behavior is an example of “authoritative messaging” and is performed by users who are engaging on behalf of the World Economic Forum, or Google’s Jigsaw unit. The report states that if “authoritative messaging” in the conspiracy forum is successful, so-called “moderate conspiracy theorists” will flip to become influencers and help guide the ‘flock’ to greener pastures as ‘brand ambassadors’ for the common good, teaching others the errors of their ways. The Google report goes on to claim that conspiracy forum members will eventually be persuaded by the bombardment of content flagged by algorithms, and they will slowly come around to believing that mainstream media and the fact-checkers are right by the sheer volume of evidence and/or peer pressure to conform. Judging by the content of this report, it’s clear the elites do not have much respect for the intelligence and persistence of the average so-called “conspiracy theorist.” The average user of conspiracy forums in 2022 has already proven themselves by rejecting the all-encompassing fake news mainstream media, despite an endless barrage of propaganda and predictive programming. These are people who understand that All The World’s a Stage. Trying to infiltrate conspiracy forums and social media and subvert certain members seems like a tactic that will be perceived as an intrusion that furthers the divide and leads to even less trust. We are part of something so huge right now. The elites would not be targeting conspiracy forums and social media in 2022 if these forums were not the last places on earth where truth is being discovered and lies are being exposed. We have the potential to break the chains of the past. The control, division, hatred, and separation. We are literally creating a new world. That’s why the control apparatus is so afraid. They know that they can’t stop this. The more they lie, the more the deceive, the more they expose themselves, the closer they are to losing control.
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), ClearWater (20th September 2022), fifi (20th September 2022), mountain_jim (20th September 2022)

  9. Link to Post #1125
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • The Controlled Narrative With Max Igan

    • The Controlled Narrative
    Daniel Andrews, Gender Identity, Controlled Opposition, Alex Jones, Controlled Narrative, Dr John Campbell, Max Igan, Class Action Suits

    In this episode:
    PLannedilLusion welcomes back Max Igan from THE CROWHOUSE to discuss the controlled narratives that have been injected into the alt media arena. This chat followed on from the 2 news alerts on PLannedilLusion that focused on controlled opposition and how the alt media is being manipulated by actors or pied pipers. This was originally setup to be aired Sunday 18th September, but technical problems forced the LIVE stream to be cancelled. Instead a LIVE stream on PLannedilLusion LIVE is scheduled for Wednesday 21st Sept. 8pm UK, to discuss the latest uploads published on PLannedilLusion that deal with the very sensitive issue of 'Controlled Narratives'

    Show Links:
    3 PIED PIPERS AND THE BLIND MICE
    plannedillusion.com/news-alert/3--pied-pipers-and-the-blind-mice

    'War On Independent News'
    plannedillusion.com/news-alert/war-on-independent-news

    'People Are Dropping Dead Suddenly'
    plannedillusion.com/forum/plannedillusion-news-alert/people-are-dropping-dead-suddenly

    'Cause of Death Unknown'
    plannedillusion.com/news-alert/cause-of-death-unknown

    'Is the stage being set for a false flag attack to be blamed on alt media platforms?'
    plannedillusion.com/forum/its-all-a-plannedillusion/is-the-stage-being-set-for-a-false-flag-attack-to-be-blamed-on-alt-media-platforms

    To Reach Max Igan
    thecrowhouse.com
    BitChute bitchute.com/channel/TheCrowhouse/
    Odysee: odysee.com/@thecrowhouse:2
    Telegram: t.me/thecrowhouseoffical
    TheCrowhouse Banned YouTube Archive on AltCensored:
    altcensored.com/channel/UCegOTmclzjfKuQh0SHflqww

    Sound Track:
    'Sanctuary' [Suspense Drama CC-BY Music] - Scott Buckley
    youtube.com/watch?v=OgeKXriwMnA
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), fifi (21st September 2022), mountain_jim (20th September 2022)

  11. Link to Post #1126
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • WEF "Tackling Disinformation":

    quote: "Disinformation is not new. Examples of disinformation and so-called fake news campaigns are plentiful. But with increasing fears about the cost of living – exacerbated by the pandemic and the energy crisis – it is now more critical than ever to tackle disinformation head-on. Join this Special Agenda Dialogue to discuss how the public, regulators and social media companies can collaborate to increase online safety". unquote
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), fifi (21st September 2022), mountain_jim (22nd September 2022)

  13. Link to Post #1127
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Lightbulb Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • SteveWillDoIt on Rumble Going Public & the Future of Free Speech:

    Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” is live from the NASDAQ studios talking to SteveWillDoIt of the NELK boys, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, Matt Kohrs, and Locals CEO Assaf Lev about Rumble going public and what it means for the future of Rumble and free speech on the internet.
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022)

  15. Link to Post #1128
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Exclamation Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • Youtube Video Exposes Election Manipulation, Youtube Is Censoring:
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022)

  17. Link to Post #1129
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • Jordan Peterson DEBATES Intelligent Asian Student On Hate Speech:

    • 1 million views in 9 days

    Jordan Peterson DEBATES Intelligent Asian Student On Hate Speech
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022)

  19. Link to Post #1130
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • How Rumble & Locals Are Planning to Erode the Big Tech Monopol:

    Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” is live from the NASDAQ studios talking to Locals CEO Assaf Lev about Rumble going public and what it means for the future of Rumble and free speech on the internet. Assaf also gives a sneak peak of new features that Rumble and Locals users can expect to see in the coming year. What is the future of tech? What effect is all the innovation coming out of silicon valley having on us? Is it inevitable that machine intelligence will eliminate a vast majority of our jobs? Is it even possible to know what future tech will look like?
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022)

  21. Link to Post #1131
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • Russell Brand's Vicious Response to Hypocritical YouTube Censorship:

    Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Russell Brand becoming the latest victim of YouTube censorship; Brand’s unhinged response to accusations of spreading misinformation on social media; Joe Biden’s bizarre hurricane preparedness advice for Florida residents in the path of Hurricane Ian; Justin Trudeau’s lifting of Canadian border restrictions and the elimination of other COVID restrictions; why the mainstream media is so afraid of Giorgia Meloni, the new prime minister of Italy, and why they are desperate to to connect her to neo-fascism and Benito Mussolini; Ron DeSantis shutting down a reporter who used a quote from a FEMA official who attempted to politicize the state’s preparations for Hurricane Ian; “The View’s” Sunny Hostin revealing her own bigotry by attacking co-host Ana Navarro for remaining in the Republican Party; Karine Jean-Pierre being refuted by Jen Psaki about the effect on Democrats of rising crime; Gavin Newsom’s ridiculous explanation for why so many people are leaving California; why Dave, Bill Maher, and Elon Musk aren’t the only people leaving the left; and much more!
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022)

  23. Link to Post #1132
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), Snoweagle (1st October 2022)

  25. Link to Post #1133
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,908
    Thanks
    9,948
    Thanked 55,170 times in 8,182 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    New Zealand - Prime Minister Addresses UN General Debate, 77th Session

    https://youtu.be/q_4Cjki3SOM?t=688


    The mind control war, as pleader for at the UN recently

    I haven't embedded the video because, for some reason, when I do that, it ignores the time stamp where I want you to start listening.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), Johnnycomelately (30th September 2022), Kryztian (30th September 2022), mountain_jim (30th September 2022)

  27. Link to Post #1134
    Avalon Member Kryztian's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th September 2012
    Posts
    3,487
    Thanks
    23,706
    Thanked 29,419 times in 3,425 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    New Zealand - Prime Minister Addresses UN General Debate, 77th Session

    https://youtu.be/q_4Cjki3SOM?t=688


    The mind control war, as pleader for at the UN recently

    I haven't embedded the video because, for some reason, when I do that, it ignores the time stamp where I want you to start listening.
    Wow, this is a masterpiece of Orwellian Newspeak. She sounds so loving, so kind, so motherly, so concerned about the welfare of humanity, about a free and secure and open internet. But you wonder what the frig she is talking about. She mentions that we have "new tools" to help humanity.

    You have to wonder what she is selling here. I clearly isn't about protecting people humans from violence. She is being used to sell some new type of authoritarianism.

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Kryztian For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), DaveToo (30th September 2022), fifi (7th October 2022), Johnnycomelately (30th September 2022), mountain_jim (30th September 2022)

  29. Link to Post #1135
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th September 2018
    Posts
    1,790
    Thanks
    5,347
    Thanked 10,971 times in 1,706 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    Quote Posted by Kryztian (here)
    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    New Zealand - Prime Minister Addresses UN General Debate, 77th Session

    https://youtu.be/q_4Cjki3SOM?t=688


    The mind control war, as pleader for at the UN recently

    I haven't embedded the video because, for some reason, when I do that, it ignores the time stamp where I want you to start listening.
    Wow, this is a masterpiece of Orwellian Newspeak. She sounds so loving, so kind, so motherly, so concerned about the welfare of humanity, about a free and secure and open internet. But you wonder what the frig she is talking about. She mentions that we have "new tools" to help humanity.

    You have to wonder what she is selling here. I clearly isn't about protecting people humans from violence. She is being used to sell some new type of authoritarianism.

    Yes indeed. Ardern is an expert in doublespeak.

    "We've improved crisis reaction stymying the ability to livestream attacks."

    Now why in the world would you want to do that Ms. Ardern?
    We would not know that the Christchurch attacks were false flag attacks
    had it not been for their livestreaming!

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DaveToo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), fifi (7th October 2022), Johnnycomelately (30th September 2022), mountain_jim (1st October 2022)

  31. Link to Post #1136
    Avalon Member Kryztian's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th September 2012
    Posts
    3,487
    Thanks
    23,706
    Thanked 29,419 times in 3,425 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    Next Star media, which owns The Hill and Rising, just banned Katie Halper, who made this very astute and compelling video about why Isreal's actions and policies resemble apartheid in Israel. Just 12 minutes long and chock full of sane information about why Israel deserves to be thought of as an apartheid state.




    === UPDATE ===

    Katie Halper is interviewed about how she was censored by Ryan Grim and Emily Jashinsky. The two interviewers were also frequently seen on Rising/The Hill and didn't seem very surprised by their censorship policies. 22 minutes.

    Last edited by Kryztian; 3rd October 2022 at 15:26. Reason: Adding more info

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kryztian For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), ExomatrixTV (3rd October 2022), fifi (7th October 2022)

  33. Link to Post #1137
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Thumbs up Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    • (Woke) Twitter Employees PANIC as Elon Musk To Take Over In Just Days!!!:

    As the new owner he can count the bots and sue the former board members/leadership of twatter. as the owner he minimizes the ability for them to sabotage his own investigation into the fraud they have allegedly committed against the shareholders for years.
    "Those panic Twitter employees are truly radical workers, working for the Chinese. Fire them all, I wouldn't trust anyone of them. I work in these industry but I would NEVER consider apply for a position at Twitter or FB, so sick environment".
    "I was working at a casino. Our General Manager was replaced. The first thing the new guy did was go from one office to the next, asking each employee, "What exactly do you do here?" It was amazing how many people could not give him an answer. That was the biggest house cleaning I ever saw. He earned my respect right off the bat. I never had any issues with him. Elon should do this".
    Last edited by ExomatrixTV; 6th October 2022 at 14:09.
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), ClearWater (6th October 2022), fifi (7th October 2022), Mark (Star Mariner) (6th October 2022)

  35. Link to Post #1138
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    4,353
    Thanks
    39,715
    Thanked 33,473 times in 4,333 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    ...

    ... from Jim Stone:
    When tested with a real search term, this new search engine returned promising results.

    If this really is an unscensored search engine, this search term proves it is very powerful and absent censorship it will be worthwhile.

    https://freespoke.com/


    "A Search Engine for the Heart of America"

    THE FREESPOKE STORY

    We exist because the search results you're looking for shouldn't be buried on page 6, if they're allowed to appear at all.

    Google, Amazon, and Facebook have too much power over the information we see. We can hardly search, buy a product, or send a message without their influence. Unfortunately, we're seeing the world as they want us to see it, not the way it actually is.

    We are the search alternative for the folks who believe the heart of America deserves a voice. One that does not pander to the overly sensitive. One that believes the rights and liberties our nation was founded on are worth protecting.

    Jim's comment:
    Considering how powerful it is, there has to be big money behind it. Who? Trump? Musk? Pillow?

    This ought to be a Google killer because that's not an easy search and the results are as good as Google was when they were setting that alexa killing trap.

  36. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    avid (7th October 2022), Bill Ryan (7th October 2022), ClearWater (13th October 2022), ExomatrixTV (9th October 2022), Harmony (7th October 2022), Kryztian (7th October 2022), Mark (Star Mariner) (7th October 2022)

  37. Link to Post #1139
    Avalon Member Kryztian's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th September 2012
    Posts
    3,487
    Thanks
    23,706
    Thanked 29,419 times in 3,425 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...

    Quote Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
    ...

    ... from Jim Stone:[INDENT][INDENT]When tested with a real search term, this new search engine returned promising results.

    If this really is an unscensored search engine, this search term proves it is very powerful and absent censorship it will be worthwhile.

    https://freespoke.com/
    Yes, one of three new search engines that make claims to be free of any agenda's in their search algorithm. They are:
    • https://freespoke.com/ - "Freespoke is fully committed to promoting and defending free speech. We are particularly focused on free speech online. Therefore, our search engine strives to provide complete results that don’t censor or manipulate your view."

    • https://luxxle.com/ - "Luxxle doesn’t remove, suppress or otherwise manipulate information to favor a particular point of view. Luxxle’s independent search index enables us to provide results with greater depth, breadth and reliability. Our news results are also presented in a unique way to make it easier to find exactly what you’re looking for quickly. "

    • https://neeva.com/ - "We built Neeva to feel like your personal corner of the web, designed specifically for you - always ad-free and private. Our mission is to serve our users, and only our users."

    The other search engine that has already been doing this for me is:
    • https://yandex.com/ "Since 1997, we have delivered world-class, locally relevant search and information services."

    Freespoke and Luxxle are the only ones that (sort of) state that their search algorithm does not favor any certain agendas. Neeva's main claim is that it is ad free (unlike Google) however it now has Youtube ads that seem to insinuate it is also free of agendas embedded in their algorithms. Frankly, all three companies could me more clear about this point.
    Last edited by Kryztian; 7th October 2022 at 13:14. Reason: fixing apostrophes and quotes

  38. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kryztian For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (2nd November 2022), ClearWater (13th October 2022), ExomatrixTV (9th October 2022), Gwin Ru (7th October 2022)

  39. Link to Post #1140
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,739
    Thanks
    30,846
    Thanked 125,791 times in 20,840 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...


    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (2nd November 2022), ClearWater (13th October 2022)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 57 of 79 FirstFirst 1 7 47 57 67 79 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts