13

Google Is Evil

 

Well, this comes as little surprise.  From Breitbart:

A video recorded by Google shortly after the 2016 presidential election reveals an atmosphere of panic and dismay amongst the tech giant’s leadership, coupled with a determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the broader populist movement emerging around the globe.

The video is a full recording of Google’s first all-hands meeting following the 2016 election (these weekly meetings are known inside the company as “TGIF” or “Thank God It’s Friday” meetings). Sent to Breitbart News by an anonymous source, it features co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, VPs Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai. It can be watched in full above. It can and should be watched in full above in order to get the full context of the meeting and the statements made.

It was reported earlier this week that Google tried to boost turnout among the Latino population to help Hillary Clinton, only to be dismayed as the usually solid Democratic voting bloc switched to the GOP in record numbers. This video shows a similar level of dismay among Google’s most high-profile figures.

Go here to read the rest.  Google basically was giving massive support to Hillary Clinton, a completely illegal, unacknowledged campaign contribution.  Donald Trump often stated that the political game in this country has become rigged.  He didn’t know the half of it.  The lords of social media view the rest of us as serfs, and are dismayed when we get uppity and go against their will.  Time to break up companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter.  They pose a standing threat to any semblance of democracy.

 

2

Deplatforming

 

 

 

 

 

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell

 

I regard Alex Jones and his Info Wars as noxious.  They are the very epitome of fake news.  However, the banning of him by Facebook is an obvious part of the strategy of the Left to “deplatform” the right.  RSMcCain, who was banned from twitter in 2016, explains:

There are many reasons I should include disclaimers to “distance” myself, as they say, from Alex Jones. He was a 9/11 “Truther” back in the day, and personally I have a hard time forgiving him for siccing a mob of his supporters on Michelle Malkin at the 2008 DNC in Denver. Yet this is not why Alex Jones is being de-platformed now. Rather, CNN and others on the Left are seeking to silence Alex Jones because he has been effective in calling attention to various facts that the Left desperately seeks to conceal from the general public. Please go read the entirely of the Ace of Spades post about this and ask yourself: “Who’s next?”

Go here to read the rest.  The precious snowflakes on the port side of our politics tend to do poorly in robust debate, and thus they wish to silence those who oppose them.  Mob tactics against speakers and “deplatforming” by social media controlled by Leftitist, like Facebook, is all part of this “crybully” strategy.  People who understand freedom of speech need to counter this attempt to create an enslaved Public Square in a free country.

 

2

He’s Sorry

 

 

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:

U.S.—In response to criticism of the alleged shadow ban of certain right-leaning accounts on the platform, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized Friday for allowing conservatives on the platform in the first place.

The visibly distraught CEO openly wept as he expressed his great remorse for ever having allowed conservatives to open accounts and let their worldview “just hang out there for the whole world to see.”

“Twitter has always been a welcoming, accepting place, so there’s obviously no room for anyone even slightly right of center,” Dorsey said. “I see that now. I’ve learned and grown from my experiences, and I hope the far-left mobs can find it in their hearts to forgive me rather than demanding I be fired on the spot.”

Go here to read the rest. Conservatives having the temerity to think that they have a right to their own opinions!  What is the world coming to?

 

19

Do We Have Free Speech?

I dislike mentioning the First Amendment when controversies like the Phil Robertson versus A&E brewhaha break out. After all, the First Amendment applies only to Congress (and the Supreme Court has ruled [incorrectly, if you ask me] that it applies to state governments via the 14th Amendment), and the actions of a cable network don’t really implicate the First Amendment. On the other hand, Ace of Spades makes a fairly compelling argument that this is too narrow an interpretation of what the First Amendment is all about.

It’s also untrue. Yes, the First Amendment, strictly speaking, applies only to the government. But there is a spirit of the First Amendment too, not just a restriction on government action.

 

And that spirit is this:

 

That we should have, to the extent compatible with ordered liberty, the maximum possible right to think and say and believe what we choose, and anyone who attempts to use force to coerce someone to think and say and believe something that is alien to them is acting contrary to the spirt of the First Amendment.

 

I’ve said this a dozen times:

 

The real, tangible threat to our right to think and speak as we will, as conscience, faith, or reason (or all three together) might impel us, is not from the government, but from our employers, and from the massively corporate media institutions that impose real penalties on people — fines, really, imposed by firings, suspensions, mandatory Thought Rehab and so forth — for daring to utter words other than the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.

 

Yes, A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robinson. A&E also has the right to stand up for a broad and generous principle of Freedom of Thought and Expression.

 

Why does no one speak of that right? Sure, they have the right to act hostilely towards the spirit of the First Amendment and use coercive power to hammer people into only speaking the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.

As I said, this is a very compelling argument, though I’m not sure I completely buy into it. In the case of employers firing people for expressing their free speech rights, true government coercion, it could be argued, would be actively prohibiting employers from firing employees for expressing unpopular opinions. Now, I personally think employers should give their employees wide latitude when it comes to expressing their opinions, and there are few examples I can think of where it would be acceptable to fire people for their political opinions.*

Which leads me to one of the most outrageous examples of over-reaction I’ve ever seen. Justine Sacco was a communications director for a firm called IAC – I say was because she was fired after tweeting the following:

Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!

The tweet was obviously a (really bad) attempt at mocking the concept of white privilege. It did not sit well with many of the purveyors of decency on the left, and within hours there was a social media firestorm. This woman with barely over 100 followers had become the locus of hate throughout the twitterverse, and soon her employers were compelled first to issue a statement of regret, and then to sack Sacco (sorry).

What was particularly heinous about the incident was how it revealed the true ugliness of social media, and I’m not referring to Sacco’s tweet. Her tweet was dumb, but clearly an example of poor humor and not racism or maliciousness. Yet this woman was hounded by the likes of Buzzfeed and other media outlets, and her tweet drew far, far, far more attention than it really merited. Like a pack of ravenous wolves, they descended on the metaphoric body of the tweet and made sure that not even a bone was left on the carcass. And why? Because of a really bad joke.

Now Sacco certainly deserves some share of the blame. After all, she was a communications director, and as such should have known better. And there’s something to be said about taking a more careful approach with social media. But are we really comfortable with getting a woman fired for a poor joke? Was her company’s bottom line really imperiled by Sacco’s crack? And of the millions of dumb tweets sent every day, why was hers one that merited such attention?

Sacco’s firing troubles me much more than Robertson’s suspension, which is not to say I wasn’t troubled by the latter. Robertson is a public figure, and he’ll be okay in the end. On the other hand, Sacco was fired because she tweeted something that offended certain people’s sensibilities. It had no bearing on her actual work with IAC, and it’s doubtful that her company’s reputation would have been damaged had they retained her. The social media pack mentality also does not speak well for our society as how many individuals mindlessly joined the herd without giving a second thought to what they were doing?

Most importantly I am just concerned about where we are headed culturally when we can’t make a public utterance without fearing the loss of our livelihoods. As Dale Price said, “If you say you believe in free speech but are routinely demanding “consequences” for speech you disagree with…you really don’t believe in free speech.” Sure we should be responsible for what we utter in public, but we need to have some perspective. I do not want to live in a country where it is acceptable to be easily fired for the flimsiest of comments.

For example, if the Chief of Public Relations for the Democratic National Committee suddenly took to twitter to rip into Harry Reid and Barack Obama, then it would most certainly not be inappropriate for the DNC to take action against that person. More seriously, I’m also thinking of teachers at Catholic schools who publicly dissent against Church teaching.

1

PopeWatch: Twitter Pope

 

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

Pope Francis reached a milestone of sorts yesterday:

 

A jubilant Pope Francis celebrated reaching 10 million followers on messaging site Twitter on Sunday , a milestone in the Vatican’s drive to spread the gospel through social media.

“Dear Followers I understand there are now over 10 million of you!” the pontiff wrote on his nine accounts, which publish simultaneously in languages including Latin, Polish and Arabic. “I thank you with all my heart and ask you to continue praying for me.”

The first non-European pope in 1,300 years has tripled the number of followers of the @pontifex handles since succeeding Benedict XVI in March, according to the Vatican, which announced Francis had reached 10 million after adding together the followers of all his accounts. This would make the pontiff more popular than the New York Times and just behind rapper Kanye West, according to websites. Continue Reading