The woke and revolutionary censorship of the big technology corporations is unfortunately still the order of the day. There are not less but more episodes that we have to confront insofar as we are annoying for an “official truth.”
It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about Zuckerberg, Dorsey or those employed in the Google section dedicated to YouTube. The dynamic is the same, although this time we are going to focus on Facebook.
In this particular case, the victim of the “censorship deliberations” has been John Stossel, an American political analyst of libertarian orientation, with a certain reputation in the “pro-market and anti-statist” field.
Stossel went so far as to publish, on the social network in question, a series of videos questioning the “official version” of scientism in relation to so-called “climate change”. It came to discuss how true the thesis points could be.
"*" indicates required fields
The first video is entitled “Are We All Doomed?” and is based on a series of clips from a colloquium organized by The Heatland Institute, in which meteorologist Patrick Michaels, geographer David Legates and astrophysicist Willie Soon discuss whether this “phenomenon” is causing more hurricanes.
Meanwhile, in another of these videos, entitled “Government Fueled Fires“, Stossel wonders if the recent wildfires in California are really due to poor management of natural areas. Journalist Michael Shellenberger is also on this video.
As can be inferred, Stossel didn’t engage in what is considered a blatant act of “climate change denialism.” He simply put forward another, “less alarmist” interpretation of reality and even went so far as to state that, on average, temperatures would have risen by about three degrees.
However, for the mere fact of discussing a version, he was censured by the fact-checkers of Climate Feedback, a Facebook partner entity in charge of monitoring publications related to environmental issues.
Faced with this, he spent almost a year in negotiations with the various instances of the service provided by Facebook (support and customer service, inter alia), presenting various allegations. But to no avail.
He has therefore chosen to take legal action, much to his regret. As he states in an article published in The Daily Signal, he is not in favor of these actions, going so far as to “recognize” that a private company can exercise “every right to silence him.”
However, he points out that defamation, the misrepresentation of what has been stated, is quite another thing. In his words, “Facebook has no right to lie about him out of hand, but that is exactly what he has done along with his fact-checker.” In fact, he uploaded a clarifying video on the matter to Facebook just this week.
In fact, based on his reaction, Stossel points out that the so-called “independent fact-checkers” of this social network are not trying to eliminate fake news, which were “hoaxes” in a strict sense. This would be for him a “noble goal”, but he understands that this is not the case.
I understand that it is easy to ignore that the moral principle of pursuing the truth is not followed. Lying is immoral, no doubt about it. But to pursue that free discussion which implies an attainment of the antithesis of the false is also illegitimate (indeed, that is how these entities act).
Stigmatizing anyone who questions the status of the “official truth”
We already know that the agents of the dictatorship of political correctness do everything possible to annihilate anyone who questions their dogmas and theoretical artifices, whose only claim is to establish an “official truth.”
Civil death, dismissal from work, academic penalization, friendly conflicts, public stigmatization, reprimand, administrative fine, criminal punishment… By means of different strategies of pressure and legal-bureaucratic execution, they try to achieve their goal.
Well, in the same way, these “guardians of wokism” (one can call them that) consider that among the various “punishments contemplated” must include exclusion from those public spaces of communication that have emanated in the network of networks.
Yes, I say that they are public because, in principle, the so-called social media (whether or not provided by the so-called Big Tech), aims to improve communications between people and entities without further ado (also promoting virtual socialization).
It does not matter that some focus more on short messages and others may focus more on instantaneous dissemination of photos and various kinds of short videos. In fact, in general, they are free of charge (another thing is that Big Tech, “from behind”, makes business with the large volumes of data generated by our activities, invading our privacy).
With all this, all these revolutionary collaborators try to make you assimilate and understand that everything has consequences, even if breaking the “commandments” of the “false pro-green statist religion” has a series of consequences, as it happens with almost everything in our daily life.
This is an attempt to help consolidate the left-wing “single thought.” The person would understand that if he dares to publicly question the postulates of revolutionary ideologies and theories, he can be “deprived” of the use of certain open media.
The totalitarian reality of fact-checkers
Knowing how these agencies, as a huge complex, work, it should be taken into account that these collaborating subjects who call themselves fact-checkers or “fact-checkers” do not differ much from the truth commissars of the communist, socialist and Nazi tyrannies.
It makes no difference whether one speaks of the Ministry of Propaganda, the Central Committees or the Ministry of Truth. What matters are the facts. Here we are talking about ideological pressure groups that watch over pro-green statism and ask for the collaboration of self-absorbed companies.
Supposedly, entities such as GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple) must understand that their technical employees (programmers, engineers, support assistants, etc.) must focus on the evolutionary maintenance of technical solutions (new projects, new versions, incident resolution, new functionalities, etc.).
Therefore, I am not at all surprised, sincerely and frankly, that they reinforce their alliances with these “truth commissariats”, with greater capacity and availability to point out what questions their “postulates”, with an additive precision to that of the famous algorithm, with certain traps and tricks.
So, let’s be clear once again how far Big Tech can go in forging this symbiosis with modern States, increasingly problematic (in this case, with “agents of the official woke truth”), instead of responding to a social interest of spontaneous resolution in the market. And, obviously, all this endangers our concrete freedoms.