1. 4
  1.  

  2. 1

    Excerpt from this WSJ editorial:

    …journalists are offering sophisticated-sounding arguments for why political speech should be controlled by tech companies. One popular argument is that Facebook’s algorithm rewards appeals to emotion so legitimate debate can’t take place. Yet political advocacy in the U.S. has always included emotional appeals. If Facebook’s algorithms favor polarizing content, that’s a separate debate.

    Others resent the way the platform has upended news delivery in a way that takes power from the press. “The news media have traditionally borne the responsibility for insuring that the actual purpose of the First Amendment is fulfilled,” said the New Yorker. It’s an unfortunate conceit of some in the media that they ought to have a monopoly on free expression to the exclusion of ordinary people and their elected representatives.

    #MediaJackals have long pretended to be in favor of freedom of speech. They even fund professional organizations like Reporters Committee for Freedom of Speech, populated by steering committee members we’ve discussed here recently.

    This claim is of course a lie. #MediaJackals do favor freedom of speech for themselves and the Democrat Party, of which they are the yipping and baying propaganda arm. But they oppose freedom of speech for their political enemies. That is why deplatforming of conservatives has not received more legacy media attention.

    That’s also why they want tech companies to police political speech. They know that tech companies are another wing of the Democrat Party (with 90%+ of political donations going to Dems). They know that President Trump’s campaign won in large part with Facebook ads. This can never be allowed to happen again.