Twitter Will Begin Banning People Who State, Correctly, That the Vaccinated Can Spread Covid
FaceBook Pleads, In Legal Arguments, That Its " " " Fact " " " Checks Are Purely Opinions

Out: Censoring "disinformation"

In: Censoring accurate information the regime finds inconvenient

Which is, of course, the goal of any censorship regime. They don't care about "lies" and "absurd conspiracy theories" -- those gain little traction and have small impact.

That's the foot-in-the-door. That's the pick-up line. That's the worm on the hook.

Their eyes are always on the real prize: Censoring true information which is damaging to The Regime's propaganda efforts.

Like Hunter Biden's laptop.

Like, the fact that vaccinated people can spread covid.

This undermines a chief argument for the vaccine mandate -- you must get vaccinated or else you'll spread covid -- so this fact must now be censored.

Twitter will begin imposing penalties on users who claim that vaccinated people can spread Covid-19, according to a change quietly added to the website’s terms of service.

"When tweets include misleading information about Covid-19, we may place a label on those tweets that includes corrective information about that claim," the website notes in a section detailing its rules about Covid-19 misinformation. "We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example... false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people."

Users can receive penalties up to a permanent ban.

The official word from the CDC, of course, is while a vaccine might reduce transmissibility, vaccinated people can still spread it.

But I guess the CDC doesn't want people to know that, or doesn't want people repeating that, because it undermines their propaganda for vaccines. So I guess they've reached out to Twitter to ask them to censor a fact on behalf of the government.

But this is all fine. It's just MuhCorporations acting completely on their own without any pressure from the government. You peon peasants have no say about what goes on here.

Meanwhile:

John Stossel is suing FaceBook (now, "Meta Platforms") for defamation in claiming that completely-true things he said were false, thus damaging his reputation. Calling a journalist a liar is about as reputation damaging as you can get.

FaceBook also just made up a statement that Stossel never said, and then claimed he'd said a falsehood.

FaceBook is pleading several defenses -- including section 230 immunity, which they are now claiming gives them not just immunity for the words of others but for their own words as well -- but also offers a new and exciting defense:

FaceBook is now claiming that their " " " Fact " " " checks are mere statements of opinion and as such cannot be defamatory.

Now I should point out that FaceBook contracts out its " " " fact " " " checks to third party (leftwing) " " " fact " " " checkers, but this should not matter, legally; a contractor is liable for the actions (including the speech) of the agent he hires to act (or speak) for him. The actions (and speech) of your agent are your actions and speech, legally speaking.

FaceBook and the other Tech Monopolies are claiming -- and have been claiming -- that s.230 makes them immune to virtually all lawsuits of any kind whatsoever, not just as regards speech spoken by third parties, and Conservative, Inc. continues insisting that s.230 does not need to be reformed, and they also continue insisting that the money they're taking from Google and FaceBook has nothing whatsoever to do with this bizarre position they've staked out, and How Dare You.

And FaceBook says these " " " fact " " " checks are just opinions.

Strangely enough, they're not labeled "Opinion Checks." Nor are they caveated as "fact" checks which are opinion based.

Nor are they treated as mere opinions -- they are treated as actual fact checks, as being found to be spreading untruths in a " " " fact " " " check results in your post being banned with, bizarrely, the traffic you would have gotten being directed instead to the third-party fact-checker.

Technically speaking, Facebook farms out its "fact-checking" to outside organizations, usually left-wing groups. In the case of Stossel's video that was defamed, the outside website is called "Climate Feedback," which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit.

Watts summarizes well the P.R. implications:

Such "fact checks" are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.

In light of Facebook's admission, it's time for the Washington Post to offer a correction to this piece by Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood, published less than a month ago, titled "Fact checks actually work, even on Facebook. But not enough people see them."

So-called "fact-checking" is a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions that that differ from those of the powerful Silicon Valley oligarchy. And now we have proof attested to in a court filing by one of the richest companies in the world, represented by some of the most elite lawyers in the world.

Viva Frei talks about this startling admission below.

He also points out that we now know that FaceBook does in fact pay its " " " fact " " " checkers, and we further know that the " " " fact " " " checkers are actually incentivized to scalp people and claim they're lying because when they do, they parasitically re-direct the traffic of the article they're claiming is false to their own site.

Also note that Steven Hayes signed up the Weekly Standard to be on FaceBook's parasitic " " " fact " " " check gravy train, and now The Dispatch is on it, too.

Don't expect The Dispatch to cover this.

Or National Review.

A lot of, ahem, "conservative" media is dying and only barely meeting payroll thanks to the munificence of Tech Monopolist Censors.

A commenter wrote in the last thread:

Jonah Goldberg is an idiot. Really, an idiot. He whines that Biden cannot be causing inflation in South America and Republicans are (therefore) unfairly blaming Biden for inflation.

Sniff, sniff!

You smell what I'm smellin'?!

I'm smellin' a Dispatch " " " fact " " " check comin' up, with some juicy traffic parasitically re-directed to Jonah's couch!

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
Posted by: 1984

Opinions&bodytext= Out: Censoring "disinformation" In: Censoring accurate information the regime finds inconvenient Which is, of course, the goal of any censorship regime. They don't care about "lies" and "absurd conspiracy theories" -- those gain little traction and have small impact....&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 02:30 PM

| Access Comments