正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Democrats have been pushing to "regulate social media platforms" — censor speech — for years. Days before Biden announced the "Disinformation Governance Board," Obama said our democracy depended on censorship and proposed amending the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment.

Michael Shellenberger

1,412,091 subscribers

8,101,032 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 的头像

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸1 年前

Censorship. It’s censorship. That’s what they want. They want to control speech so they can control thought. That’s always been their plan.

Crazy Moments 的头像

Crazy Moments1 年前

Democrats are good at stealing and lying

Rob Guthrie 的头像

Rob Guthrie1 年前

Obama: “The way I’m going to evaluate any proposal touching on social media and the Internet is whether it strengthens or weakens the prospects for a healthy, inclusive democracy.” Shellenberger: “It would be difficult to overstate just how radical Obama’s proposal is. America’s had a standard for evaluating speech since 1789. It’s the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is famously unqualified. It says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That sentence is not followed by ‘so long as it doesn’t weaken the prospects for a healthy and inclusive democracy’. It’s inconceivable that Obama does not know this. After all, he was the President of the Harvard Law Review.” The Harris/Walz administration would put censorship advocacy back on the table.

Phil Fox 的头像

Phil Fox1 年前

They are not amending the 1st amandment, they are now ignoring the entire Constitution

LynyrdsMom 的头像

LynyrdsMom1 年前

Isn’t that type of government censorship illegal per the first amendment? I believe the answer is “yes”. But then it has to be upheld if challenged by the Supreme Court. And now you know why the democrats have been attacking the conservative justices and want to pack the court.

𝐉𝐎𝐇𝐍 𝐖𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝕏ʰⁱᵗᵐᵃⁿ 🔫 的头像

𝐉𝐎𝐇𝐍 𝐖𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝕏ʰⁱᵗᵐᵃⁿ 🔫1 年前

The Blob

J Stewart 的头像

J Stewart1 年前

Obama set up stay behind networks in the federal government when he left office in 2017 and also repealed the 1948 Smith–Mundt Act, which then permitted propaganda to be in broadcasting.

Bret Weingart 的头像

Bret Weingart1 年前

No censorship of any Americans ever. This is the red line that government must not cross ever. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Therefore, if Congress cannot abridge freedom of speech, then no other official of the Govt can either.

A 的头像

A1 年前

We’ve gone 248 years just the way it is. And because of it, although it is strained right now, we are still the greatest country in the world. Obama is clearly a marxist communist. And it is quite conspicuous since you never hear him praise the Constitution.

Bob Cooper 的头像

Bob Cooper1 年前

It is time to charge Obama with Treason against the United States.

相关视频

The Democrats—the same party who created the "Disinformation Governance Board" & weaponized a leviathan of government agencies to police Americans' speech—are now pretending to care about the First Amendment. It's laughable.

The Democrats—the same party who created the "Disinformation Governance Board" & weaponized a leviathan of government agencies to police Americans' speech—are now pretending to care about the First Amendment. It's laughable.

Senator Eric Schmitt

35,564 次观看 • 6 个月前

Last year, one week before the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security announced a "Disinformation Governance Board" for government censorship online, Barack Obama gave a speech at Stanford calling for precisely that. The timing & content suggest an orchestrated influence operation.

Last year, one week before the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security announced a "Disinformation Governance Board" for government censorship online, Barack Obama gave a speech at Stanford calling for precisely that. The timing & content suggest an orchestrated influence operation.

Michael Shellenberger

1,094,414 次观看 • 3 年前

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

131,350 次观看 • 1 年前

The head of France's censorship office targeting US platforms was working for years directly with the Biden admin on disinformation and social media regulation, through a State Dept & USAID-funded partnership

The head of France's censorship office targeting US platforms was working for years directly with the Biden admin on disinformation and social media regulation, through a State Dept & USAID-funded partnership

Mike Benz

159,862 次观看 • 1 个月前

FIGUEIREDO EXPLAINS THE GLOBAL SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP FRAMEWORK IN BRAZIL AND HOW IT CIRCUMVENTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO CENSOR ANYONE GLOBALLY Host of “The Paulo Figueiredo Show” Paulo Figueiredo explains to Matt Gaetz the functionality of the social media censorship complex, “being promoted as a global framework - so it’s a stepping stone for something identical in Europe, Canada…if these countries implement this type of censorship, free speech in the West is DONE,” adding “they’re trying to circumvent the First Amendment to censor anyone globally.”

FIGUEIREDO EXPLAINS THE GLOBAL SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP FRAMEWORK IN BRAZIL AND HOW IT CIRCUMVENTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO CENSOR ANYONE GLOBALLY Host of “The Paulo Figueiredo Show” Paulo Figueiredo explains to Matt Gaetz the functionality of the social media censorship complex, “being promoted as a global framework - so it’s a stepping stone for something identical in Europe, Canada…if these countries implement this type of censorship, free speech in the West is DONE,” adding “they’re trying to circumvent the First Amendment to censor anyone globally.”

One America News

37,933 次观看 • 1 年前

Under the First Amendment, the president doesn’t get to censor comedians, TV networks or political speech. Americans and our Constitution reject Kings, dictators and speech Commissars.

Under the First Amendment, the president doesn’t get to censor comedians, TV networks or political speech. Americans and our Constitution reject Kings, dictators and speech Commissars.

Rep. Jamie Raskin

315,976 次观看 • 9 个月前

They want to Regulate social media before the Finance Bill 2025 is proposed!

They want to Regulate social media before the Finance Bill 2025 is proposed!

The Kenyan Vigilante

60,318 次观看 • 1 年前

"Globalists Declare War on Free Speech" Under the guise of "protecting democracy," EU chief Ursula von der Leyen has unveiled a chilling plan to regulate social media platforms and control online discourse. Speaking in a World Economic Forum video, she stated: "We need to contain this immense power of the big digital companies... and defend our institutions against the corrosive power of hate speech, disinformation, fake news, and incitement to violence." Translation? Censorship. The same globalists who claim to "defend democracy" are the ones working to silence dissent, crush free speech, and centralize power. This isn’t about stopping disinformation—it’s about controlling YOU. Don’t let them rewrite the rules of truth. Stand up for freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and democracy itself. ✊

"Globalists Declare War on Free Speech" Under the guise of "protecting democracy," EU chief Ursula von der Leyen has unveiled a chilling plan to regulate social media platforms and control online discourse. Speaking in a World Economic Forum video, she stated: "We need to contain this immense power of the big digital companies... and defend our institutions against the corrosive power of hate speech, disinformation, fake news, and incitement to violence." Translation? Censorship. The same globalists who claim to "defend democracy" are the ones working to silence dissent, crush free speech, and centralize power. This isn’t about stopping disinformation—it’s about controlling YOU. Don’t let them rewrite the rules of truth. Stand up for freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and democracy itself. ✊

Jim Ferguson

146,624 次观看 • 1 年前

WATCH: Sen. Amy Klobuchar confronted over her past calls to censor election and COVID content. Asked how she can accuse Trump of threatening the First Amendment while pushing to silence political opposition, Senator Amy Klobuchar replied: “I’ve always supported the First Amendment... but when we have speech that is not protected, that is where our country has always drawn the line.” Pressed on COVID-era censorship of conservatives, she had no answer. The same Democrats who demanded censorship now claim to be defenders of free speech. The hypocrisy writes itself.

WATCH: Sen. Amy Klobuchar confronted over her past calls to censor election and COVID content. Asked how she can accuse Trump of threatening the First Amendment while pushing to silence political opposition, Senator Amy Klobuchar replied: “I’ve always supported the First Amendment... but when we have speech that is not protected, that is where our country has always drawn the line.” Pressed on COVID-era censorship of conservatives, she had no answer. The same Democrats who demanded censorship now claim to be defenders of free speech. The hypocrisy writes itself.

LindellTV

151,169 次观看 • 9 个月前

Elon Musk: “Free speech is the bedrock of Democracy, and if people don’t know what’s going on, if they don’t know the truth, how can they make an informed vote? You must have free speech in order to have Democracy. That’s why it’s the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment is there to ensure that we have the First Amendment… President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America”

Elon Musk: “Free speech is the bedrock of Democracy, and if people don’t know what’s going on, if they don’t know the truth, how can they make an informed vote? You must have free speech in order to have Democracy. That’s why it’s the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment is there to ensure that we have the First Amendment… President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America”

America

597,719 次观看 • 1 年前

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

Michael Shellenberger

21,897,716 次观看 • 2 年前

RFK Jr. blasts Governor Walz for not understanding the first amendment: “We’re in a very frightening time now where we are seeing the normalization of censorship. I saw this quote Governor Walz, said last year where he said that the First Amendment is not absolute, that it does not protect misinformation or disinformation, and he is legally wrong there, it does protect that. The First Amendment protects speech, true speech, and it protects lies. It protects good speech, and it protects bad speech. It protects all speech.” They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous.” “Louis Brandeis said that the remedy for bad speech, the remedy for lies is not censorship, it's more speech. If we don't understand that, we will lose democracy for sure.”

RFK Jr. blasts Governor Walz for not understanding the first amendment: “We’re in a very frightening time now where we are seeing the normalization of censorship. I saw this quote Governor Walz, said last year where he said that the First Amendment is not absolute, that it does not protect misinformation or disinformation, and he is legally wrong there, it does protect that. The First Amendment protects speech, true speech, and it protects lies. It protects good speech, and it protects bad speech. It protects all speech.” They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous.” “Louis Brandeis said that the remedy for bad speech, the remedy for lies is not censorship, it's more speech. If we don't understand that, we will lose democracy for sure.”

End Tribalism in Politics

261,809 次观看 • 1 年前

RFK Jr. SLAMS Hillary Clinton, Tim Walz, and Kamala Harris at Michigan Trump rally for promising to censor “misinformation and disinformation” “Who was the biggest perpetrator of lies during the Covid epidemic? It was the government itself! They were the ones promoting misinformation and disinformation. I saw this week Hillary Clinton, Tim Walz, and Kamala Harris all using the same talking point: the next administration is gonna get rid of misinformation and disinformation because that is not protected by the First Amendment. Well, it is. The First Amendment protects lies the same as it protects truth … That is the fundamental foundation stone of democracy, that everybody gets to have their own truth. As Louis Brandeis said, ‘the remedy for bad speech is not censorship. Never, because that turns to totalitarianism. The remedy for bad speech is more speech.’ That’s something that Donald Trump understands, because he’s been censured himself.”

RFK Jr. SLAMS Hillary Clinton, Tim Walz, and Kamala Harris at Michigan Trump rally for promising to censor “misinformation and disinformation” “Who was the biggest perpetrator of lies during the Covid epidemic? It was the government itself! They were the ones promoting misinformation and disinformation. I saw this week Hillary Clinton, Tim Walz, and Kamala Harris all using the same talking point: the next administration is gonna get rid of misinformation and disinformation because that is not protected by the First Amendment. Well, it is. The First Amendment protects lies the same as it protects truth … That is the fundamental foundation stone of democracy, that everybody gets to have their own truth. As Louis Brandeis said, ‘the remedy for bad speech is not censorship. Never, because that turns to totalitarianism. The remedy for bad speech is more speech.’ That’s something that Donald Trump understands, because he’s been censured himself.”

Holden Culotta

71,008 次观看 • 1 年前

Today on Rising, Taylor Lorenz SLAMS Joe Biden, Neera Tanden, and other Democrats who have joined Republicans in backing terrible social media regulations. "The Democrats have been so aggressively pro censorship," she says.

Today on Rising, Taylor Lorenz SLAMS Joe Biden, Neera Tanden, and other Democrats who have joined Republicans in backing terrible social media regulations. "The Democrats have been so aggressively pro censorship," she says.

Robby Soave

652,856 次观看 • 6 个月前

As the conversation continued, Zuckerberg even suggested that the Biden administration is guilty of illegal acts to censor speech. “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal,” he said. “Having people in the administration calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true is like, it’s pretty bad.”

As the conversation continued, Zuckerberg even suggested that the Biden administration is guilty of illegal acts to censor speech. “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal,” he said. “Having people in the administration calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true is like, it’s pretty bad.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,313,709 次观看 • 1 年前

.Nikki Haley is *openly* pushing for the government to use private tech companies to censor speech. This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution and straight out of the Democrats’ playbook. Any politician who thinks it’s OK for the government to use the private sector as its censorship bureau shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House.

.Nikki Haley is openly pushing for the government to use private tech companies to censor speech. This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution and straight out of the Democrats’ playbook. Any politician who thinks it’s OK for the government to use the private sector as its censorship bureau shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House.

Vivek Ramaswamy

1,590,401 次观看 • 2 年前

🇺🇸 MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER: MEDIA ADVOCATED CENSORSHIP OF COMPETITORS "The media had been pushing for censorship of their competitors on social media platforms. Settling this case avoided disclosure that might have revealed much more they didn’t want out." Source: Fox Michael Shellenberger

🇺🇸 MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER: MEDIA ADVOCATED CENSORSHIP OF COMPETITORS "The media had been pushing for censorship of their competitors on social media platforms. Settling this case avoided disclosure that might have revealed much more they didn’t want out." Source: Fox Michael Shellenberger

Mario Nawfal

27,211 次观看 • 1 年前

Merkel becomes the 1st person to receive the European Order of Merit, the EU’s new top honor for people who have contributed the most to Europe’s development. In her speech, she urged EU leaders to regulate speech on social media She says it’s the only way to “ save democracy”

Merkel becomes the 1st person to receive the European Order of Merit, the EU’s new top honor for people who have contributed the most to Europe’s development. In her speech, she urged EU leaders to regulate speech on social media She says it’s the only way to “ save democracy”

Visegrád 24

589,401 次观看 • 1 个月前