Social media censorship—here are the deep basics

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Orchestrated un-creation of the fabric of free speech—this is what we’re seeing.

Several of the biggest “conservative/libertarian” figures on the Net—Alex Jones, Dennis Prager, Stefan Molyneux, among others—have recently been banned/censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies.

When you ask why this is happening, one obvious answer pops up right away:

These social media corporations are fulfilling desperate pleas from major news outlets, who have been losing audience, in massive chunks, to the likes of Jones, Prager, and Molyneaux.

The newspapers and TV news networks came to end of their rope. They had no solutions to their problem—so they went to Google, Facebook, and others, and said, HELP US. Meaning: Censor our competition.

On one level, understanding censorship is that simple.

But then you have to ask yourself this question: Why would Google, Facebook, and other social media giants bend to the needs of mainstream news outlets?

These social media operations are richer and bigger than mainstream news. They could easily have said: “No, we like open forums and a wide variety of opinion, and we think people should be able to deal with ideas they don’t like. We stand for an open society, and we vigorously defend the 1st Amendment.”

But they didn’t say that. Instead, they’re enacting bans and censorship. Why?

The obvious answer staring us in the face is: Google and Facebook and You Tube, for example, the largest social media corporations, are not “free companies.”

They’ve been in bed with the intelligence community for a long time, and they favor wall to wall surveillance of the population. They favor the “liberal” version of a policed State, where correct opinions are let in the door and incorrect opinions are shut down.

Let’s quickly review a bit of Facebook history:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

What about Google?

Read Nafeez Ahmed’s (twitter) excellent multi-part series at, “How the CIA made Google”:

“INSURGE INTELLIGENCE (twitter) can now reveal the vast extent to which the US intelligence community is implicated in nurturing the web platforms we know today…The lynchpin of this story is the corporation that in many ways defines the 21st century with its unobtrusive omnipresence: Google.”

“Google styles itself as a friendly, funky, user-friendly tech firm that rose to prominence through a combination of skill, luck, and genuine innovation. This is true. But it is a mere fragment of the story. In reality, Google is a smokescreen behind which lurks the US military-industrial complex.”

“The inside story of Google’s rise, revealed here for the first time, opens a can of worms that goes far beyond Google, unexpectedly shining a light on the existence of a parasitical network driving the evolution of the US national security apparatus, and profiting obscenely from its operation…”

In other words, social media aren’t banning and censoring “conservatives/libertarians” merely as a favor to their kissing cousins who run major news outlets—no, this goes much deeper.

This is the intelligence and Pentagon communities, with their attendant neo-cons and military contractors, defending their version of the “new world.”

Anyone with a large online audience, who has strong opinions which resist and run counter to this new world vision, is considered an obstacle, and a target for censorship.

The intelligence/Pentagon vision? Endless wars; endless waves of migration engendering chaos; multinational corporations free to roam the planet, set up shop in hellholes, produce their goods for relative pennies, sell those goods anywhere with no tariffs, thus undermining local economies and centralizing economic power in fewer hands; the vast expansion of surveillance and censorship (which go hand in hand); widening poverty, which makes more and more people dependent on government…

Social media censorship isn’t merely a bunch of knee-jerk liberals trying to stop ideas they don’t like. It is that, but it’s much, much, much more.

Google and Facebook are nurtured creatures of the national security state.

Here are links to go to, to listen to the Alex Jones show:

Live stream: 9am to Noon ET:

Live stream: Noon to 4pm ET:

Live stream: 4pm to 7pm ET:

Additionally, here:

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

46 comments on “Social media censorship—here are the deep basics

  1. vrajavala says:

    Great article… I have linked it in a book I am writing “Q ANON: The Reluctant Warrior”(Part 3) Thank Q

  2. truth1 says:

    The CIA is a non-elected group that offers continuous consistent control and direction of our nation, and the world. But obviously not for good. That means that our constitution has become meaningless and Irrelevant. we are all know slaves. We think we vote when really, they CIA leads us in the direction they want us to vote in, and we all comply, though unaware of our compliance. Its the tail wagging the dog. The CIA was a menace from the day Truman put it into motion.

    Secrecy is never good policy. JFK got that right in April, 1961. There are always lots of reasons why “we guts ta have secrecy or the USSR will win. Ah ha ha ha ha ha! The USSR could not get out of its own way. We gave them the “Bomb” and a lot of tech and money, too.

    Odd that while the CIA was supposed to oppose the USSR, the reality was it opposed USA citizens. In the field of family courts, secrecy, the biggest violator of justice, which always demands open transparency, id the rule that robs us of justice and transparency. All forms of secrecy are pure unadulterated evil. You can not have openness and justice, and still have secrecy. Openness and transparency are a way of going things, a way of life. They are not the least compatible with secrecy. but we the citizens have never understood or accepted that. Therefore, we have accepted bondage and slavery. We don’t even have any right to cry about it since we are too stupid to understand the danger naturally inherent in Secrecy.

    It is said, we get what we ask for, and we get what we deserve. Enjoy your Koolaid!

    • From Quebec says:

      YES. Evil operate in the dark.

      But, as for: (We think we vote when really, they CIA leads us in the direction they want us to vote in, and we all comply, though unaware of our compliance.)

      This i where I do not agree with you. I believe that we always vote for the person who seems to be the most honest and genuine

      As for me, I just look at their faces and I know right away who to vote for. Faces tells all.

      • truth1 says:

        I just look at the very consistent pattern of the last 200 years to get my bearing on who is who. they are all jokers and frauds.

    • dectiri says:

      Obviously, you have your own low opinion of the Constitution and its adherents… WE DID NOT ELECT THE CIA CANDIDATE…… that is the whole fact that you think can be classed as ‘irrelevant’… if it were so irrelevant, there would be no need to bring the whole neocon/war machine so out-in-public with the GROSS, OUTRAGEOUS censorship…..

      • truth1 says:

        Did you even rad my comment. I made it clear that the CIA was not elected. And that is the problem. They are not accountable to the people (though the reality is that they should be. All government operations, including dummy corporations funded by government for government benefit, but not ours.

        So here is my suggestion, Mr. CIA sock puppet. Put the booze away, sober up and then read my comment while sober so you can see what I really said, and don’t listen to the pink elephant. Its just your imagination.

        • dectiri says:

          Your comment said quite plainly that we were CIA slaves that only voted in a fantasy land, and clearly we did NOT elect the CIA’s chosen one this time, so take your insults and attack yourself

  3. Reblogged this on John Barleycorn and commented:
    All by design

  4. Rastafari says:

    the censorship mentioned here told the story of the time when the big boys got caught up. jones et al. but the unmentioned target is the thousands upon thousands of small channels that have been under attack by you tube for a long time. with outright censorship (bans) and manipulative censorship (inaccurate rating numbers, advertisement policy). the you tube channel “Jenn” actively and openly promotes pedophilia. isn’t banned. no mention of strikes. yet, the great resource channel of “mag bitter truth” gets censored and strikes for showing the true drug epidemic. his artwork (documentary) was confiscated and not allowed to be shown. these 2 examples, how many more are there?

  5. Mike says:

    “… defending their version of the “new world.”
    I’m working and waiting on the meme “Cowardly New World” to break into daily discourse.

  6. Mike says:

    “Google and Facebook are nurtured creatures of the national security state.
    The merger of big.gang.guv with – none dare call it Fascism?

  7. voza0db says:

    Jon… You also do censorship!

    It’s called “comments moderation”!

    If you don’t like the content you simply don’t allow the publication of it… so now what?!

    • MODERATION : the quality of being ‘moderate’; restraint; avoidance of extremes or excesses; temperance

      I don’t see censorship in that definition. I suppose you think this a clever, and logical comment. It not, it fucking irritating when peons like yourself come along and throw rocks at the windows. 

      What gave you the thought that you had the right to comment freely here, without moderation — that your right to free speech included this website. This is private property.

      I don’t think you understand — this is someone’s intellectual property — it is owned by them, they purchase it, maintain it — it is neither a forum, a social network or connected to any community sponsored ideal. If it was — then commenting is what it is all about.

      This website is the publishing company, owned by a single person, who, is an investigative journalist, and he put’s his articles/stories/poems out freely every single day to be read by nice people.

      You don’t have to stick a nickel in a slot and pull out a paper and go to page 31 for Jon’s article —  its free, a gift — secondary, to the selling of his products and services. Which support these articles. and they are the main purpose of the site.

      I have a sign in my washroom it states…

      “Towels on the towel rack are for people who live in this house, if you don’t live in this house. wipe your wet hands on your pants.”

      Do you have anything positive to add to this rather interesting piece about Google? Do you care about a giant corporate monopoly shutting down people right to speak publicly on a PUBLIC FORUM. Shutting done their right to all sources of information? Do you care that Sergey was never going to fail. And was guarenteed success. Or are you and I going to hijack the main point: ‘GOOGLE’ is wanting to keep you in that Internet bubble that you’re in, and keep your mouth bantering these ridiculous annoyances.

      Comments by readers are not a necessary function of the website. Necessary to the final outcome of the page.
      It is a privilege extended to you by the owner with no guarantee that it will ever be published. If you look at the top of comments section, there is no sign stating that every comment will be published. Sometimes there are too many comments — sometimes trolls like yourself can state the ridiculous and side track important issues and take up space. Is, not putting insult comments or trolling disparages in the comments section censorship?

      No! It is not censorship. Because what you say, is not important enough to be censored. It throwing out garbage, kicking bums of your lawn, cleaning up the riff raff.

      Say something intelligent, gain an original thought, or forever remain this stupid.

      • From Quebec says:

        Say something intelligent, gain an original thought, or forever remain this stupid.

        I like your closing statement. Michael….lol

      • Robert Graf says:

        The difference between moderation and censorship exists solely in the imagination of the censor. From the length of your response, it apparently triggered your programming.

        • Having the attention span of gerbil is nothing to brag about Robert — your knowing is limited to sounds bits it seems. That’s ok maybe you’ll catch up soon…

          Moderation is maintaining the site, not allowing other commentators to be abused by some nut who wanders in and starts shooting up the place, starts taking shots at the commenters.

          Censorship is you, Robert having an original thought for once, and writing it out here in long form for us to agree or disagree with — you set down the logic of your argument, against the authors article, or another commenters argument. And the owner this site, or his moderator CENSOR that comment.
          Should I explain it more to you, or is that simple enough Robert.

          You twat…lol

          • Robert Graf says:

            Looks like I really hit a sore spot. You drama queens sure are hypersensitive.

            “Having the attention span of gerbil is nothing to brag about Robert — your knowing is limited to sounds bits it seems. That’s ok maybe you’ll catch up soon…”

            What part of my response did you interpret as being boastful? Looks like you have some comprehension issues. Also, some serious grammar problems. Not to mention that this insult is really only effective until the point you start writing with something other than crayons. This is laughable for even a junior high student. Seriously weak, sissy boy.

            “Moderation is maintaining the site, not allowing other commentators to be abused by some nut who wanders in and starts shooting up the place, starts taking shots at the commenters.”

            That’s still censorship. By that standard, your reply to the original poster should have been ‘moderated’, since you took a shot at him.

            “Censorship is you, Robert having an original thought for once,…”

            Which dictionary did you get this from? Or, maybe I should ask, do you speak English?

            ” and writing it out here in long form for us to agree or disagree with — you set down the logic of your argument, against the authors article, or another commenters argument.”

            Learn some grammar. This alphabet soup of a run-on sentence just makes you look stupid. Trying to insult me while you’re obviously foaming at the mouth just shows how short your attention span is.

            “And the owner this site, or his moderator CENSOR that comment.
            Should I explain it more to you, or is that simple enough Robert.”

            You’ll need to learn English, first. Then formal logic. You sure are stupid.

            “You twat…lol”

            LOL? You sissyboys just don’t get how stupid you look. I bet you got slapped around by the girls in 5th grade, didn’t you?

        • voza0db says:

          But a censor will never accept that reality!

        • bob klinck says:

          If Jon is potentially legally liable for remarks that his site puts in the public domain, which I’m quite certain is the case, then it’s normal that he would reserve the right to moderate same. In my experience, the scope he allows for discussion is exemplary.

      • PJ London says:

        Amazing, that is exactly what Google and Facebook said.

        • PJ London
          And, are they not right? Google and Facebook are products that you use. Boycott the product, if you are not receiving, what you were lead to believe, what you thought was unbiased — Google and Facebook are captive markets…seems simple to me. I use neither Google or Facebook.

        • voza0db says:

          He probably trained the Google and Facebook slaves in the “Art of Censorship… and How to Get away with it”

      • voza0db says:

        Yep… I really hit the nail!

        You must have this testament already written is some weird txt file and just copy/paste!

  8. IMNAHA says:

    A 3rd probability is that these media giants want to be brought under the official gov regulatory umbrella for their “monopolistic behaviors. Just as Standard Oil ultimately benefited from the anti trust action, which so would these companies by controlling markets in their favor. If I read this right, Senator Mark Warner is now calling for some sort of gov intervention. Another Brer Rabbit move by the wonderful intel folks.

    • Good point.

      Interesting to note how other smaller search engines are sometimes enhanced by Google. When you define enhanced, it means to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify. I could see a split up of Google, but your right it would only make them bigger, and richer.

  9. From Quebec says:


    Tucker Carlson: On Free Speech and Alex Jones Censorship

  10. I’m afraid I still largely disagree with this view, Jon.

    The nonsense about Google in particular. Many struggle to come to terms with the fact it is a commercial entity. I could well see tightening against all “non” or “lightly-paying” volume traffic. SEO is BIG BUSINESS!!!!!!

    As for Facebook, this is going through a familiar multi-cultural adjustment. To stem viscerally aggressive “wars” between cultures, all “isms” must be forbidden. Thus, a tolerance of sycophantism persists.

    If you were to legitimately blame anyone, I would start with those that hashed up conceptual philosophies for the Jewish anti-defamation legislation…..


    • maidinamerica says:

      Seriously!? a multi-cultural adjustment!? You have bought Their one-world socialist propaganda!

      • ROFLAO….

        What about the freakin’ Indians, imperialist?

        You forget the tyrannies and blood upon which your “great” (sic) national was built. Why would a philosophical “land of the free” have immigration? Those woeful double standards are currently being politically played out using “Mexicans”. Nothing new there.

    • PJ London says:

      It is only a ‘commercial entity’ at the permission of the government.
      If you have ever had dealings with government at a serious level then you would know that you do as you are told, or advised or suggested or merely hinted at.
      ‘PJ London 5 days ago
      What people need to realise is that Arkanicide and Seth Rich is real.
      If you have a product that is harming, embarrassing or is useful to the powers that be, you get a “visit”.
      You and your whole family WILL be destroyed. You want your daughter to spend the next 20 years in a federal prison?
      You want your wife to be sold down to Mexico?
      Dozens of men and women in federal prisons, indefinitely, for not keeping quiet. For knowing where the crimes took place.
      If you do not have family or refuse to keep quiet, then you get ‘deaded’. If you have family then you get one of them put away to ensure the good behaviour of the rest.
      Everyone, yes everyone is shut down. Remember Oklahoma city? In the first 2 hours a dozen experts said that the explosion could not possibly have been ANFO outside the building to cause the damage. By the next morning no-one said a word.
      9/11? not a single firefighter or construction engineer believes that 2 airplanes can drop 3 massive buildings. Every demolition man in the world knows that the towers could not possibly have dropped as they did without hundreds of explosions. If any expert says a word, they get the “visit”.
      Same in software, best database in the world, don’t agree to hand over to US government and you are out of business.
      People like me can say anything as no-one listens.
      Alex Jones is making too much noise about Sandy Hook, and real documentary evidence of the hoax is being uncovered. He won’t shut up and is saying “I will see you in court”.
      If Sandy Hook is proven to be a false flag, complete hoax and utter garbage, then the lid comes off all the BS. From Waco via OKC and 9/11 to Las Vegas.
      When that happens, if it is in the next 50 years, then a lot of people will be tried and executed.
      There is too much money and too many lives at stake to allow it to happen, and if Mozilla, or Apple or Twitter need to be taught how to behave, then so be it.’
      Please estimate how much it cost to create Google world view and maps and then explain how that money is being recovered from users or advertisers.
      However foreign governments and people might have got a little upset at CIA vehicles photographing every street and house. Thank you US taxpayer, I can now see my street and if ever I need to attack Joe Blog of 29, Main street, Anytown, Papua New Guinea, I know exactly what his street and home looks like.
      The governments OWN everyone and every entity.

      • PJ London…a paragraph from my most recent Ozzie Thinker article

        “The reason (under this system) ownership will never be abolished (although it may be restricted) is governments would have to rescind their slave master statuses in order to transform into arbitrators that truly work “for the people”. Currently populations are effectively forced to toil to survive. Those privileged enough to “own” sufficient land holdings supported by interest bearing investments probably haven’t the skills to become entirely self-sufficient. Thus, without government society would naturally function through the formation of brokered relationships that would need to leverage and harness social parasitism. According to today’s popular press (sponsored by corporate interests and governments who are in themselves giant corporations), people only want good jobs. People, by the same rose tinted reasoning, will do anything to keep their good jobs. Commerce needs labour to function. Indeed, for those that were (in society) to ever become self-sufficient, commerce would cease to be necessary. That lack of functional necessity could only be defeated by interest in collectables and other objet d’art which, though arguably functionally irrelevant, fuel a potentially ever-accruing “need for more”. I guess that is why we have collectors.”

        • PJ London says:

          Hi, extract from Saddam’s Sister (Chapter 10) PJ Lang :

          “….. If we look at Human resources for a moment. America became great built on the labour of a well educated workforce. People walked into a job with a motor company, electrical manufacturer or commercial distributor, and could become almost immediately productive. You could give them a manual or a set of instructions and they could read, understand and carry out those instructions. They did not need a long apprenticeship to operate a harvester or a metal press, they simply read the manual. Manual dexterity and strength was reserved for a relatively few occupations but education, ability to learn quickly and adapt, was much more important. Because the incredible speed and improvements in developing machines for industry and agriculture meant that a new method was being introduced every few years. The ability to design, build and operate large machinery, locomotives, trucks, bulldozers, metal presses, printing presses, steel mills was what drove progress for all the world.

          With the introduction of transistors and electronics everything shifted again. Dexterity became the major skill that was required. Ability to handle very small items, place them exactly right and solder a tiny wire without melting the backplate. Dexterity became a valuable skill, and the low cost workforce of Asia became the engine that moved the world forward. The next transformation, which is already taking place is the robotic manufacture. Much stronger than the black workforce, better at learning than the educated workforce, more dexterous than the Asiatic workforce, and much much cheaper. Each time there was a change, there was a huge dislocation of wealth and power, it will happen again.
          Paraphrasing what Buckminster Fuller in the 1930s said, “We must do away with the idea that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact that one in ten thousand of us, can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he has to justify his right to exist. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”
          What we have to do is find a way for our Malundi human resources to thrive and live whilst the rest of the world transitions into not having enough work. We are fortunate, we have never had any work.
          In any society, the ability to produce exceeds the necessities of living except in very harsh environments. We are in Eden, spit out grape pits and next year you have a vineyard.
          The Egyptians used the excess to build Pyramids, the Mayan, the Khmer, the Europeans built great cathedrals and religious centres. Thousands, maybe millions of man-hours poured into piling rocks on top of each other. Even in Zimbabwe, they stacked rocks to create temples or tombs. The Greeks and the Romans built arenas and theatres. Imagine designing and building, by hand, a swimming pool the size of the Coliseum, just so that you can have ‘Naval Battles’, to entertain the mobs.
          In the current Western society, the excess has two places to be stored. Either in the excessive wealth of a very few people or in weapons, bombs, planes, ships and missiles. Both are a ridiculous use of resources. These methods have been used over and over again and in every case have caused the downfall of the nation. Temporary wealth, over indulgence and catastrophic decline. …. ”

          Smashwords (set price to $0 for free read)

          • PJ London….the “fault” is everyone feels empowered by “freedom of choice” to do as they please, yet, ultimately, for most there is only one choice…..WORK. Because most work generates some form of remuneration, people are now fully complacent. Rather than being slave fodder, they have “careers”. Yet, just about everyone would drop their career dead if the remuneration dried up.

            1865 (or 1837) emancipation was a GIANT CON. That’s when social security ended and real enslavement commenced….

  11. doesn't play well with the others says:

    I don’t use any of the selfie media platforms and never will. If someone doesn’t like what Alex Jones says then turn it off.
    These so called private companies wouldn’t exist without government money and huge tax breaks.
    Two thumbs up to all the dumbasses who volunteer their information for free so a third party can profit off of it.
    BTW-What indispensable product does social media make?

  12. maidinamerica says:

    The Hagmann show just got censored off you-tube

  13. truth1 says:

    Well, I see a lot of back and forth bickering. At one time, the town square was the place of greetings, exchanges, ideas, etc. Some would do it at the Coffee house.

    The net changed society, rather for better or worse. social exchanges are primarily on the net now, as a society and people, we have changed. Yes, FB, Twttter, Youtube comments, and so much more, are now gathering and meting places. Like it or not, if we allow someone to block our roads, the police will soon arrive to provide the unruly ones with a stay at the local jail and bail joint.

    If youtube is going to be allowed to continue to make their services available as a product, which product is adverting, then they have to follow rules. False advertising is actionable. what is more, if they offer comments, then they must not discriminate. If I open a restaurant and a maritan wants to be served, I have to serve him. I can’t tell him to go back to mars. now I don’t agree with that law, but abide by it. So if commenting services are provided, they many not discriminate by race, creed, color, or thought or opinion, either.

    The whole purpose of Free speech in the Bill of rights is to allow a free exchange of thoughts and ideas throughout society. If you allow someone or any one to control who says what, you will soon have wars in your society. Ex: the left interferes with free speech of any who differ with them. I say give them 3 warnings at 3 protests where they open interfere and let them know that if they insist on disrupting the free speech of others, that the government reserves the right to brutally and violently put down the aggressors of free speech with deadly force. sedition and treason are illegal for very good reasons. We have laws we want respected. if you don’t like what someone else says or publishes, then publish your ideas and let them stand or fall in the market place of ideas.

    So I say that if making comments on youtube is offered, the free speech should be mandated. but lets be real. Many of the abilities built into youtube allow for deceit. A channel operator can make you comment not be visible, except to you, so that you will not now its now showing to others. These are clearly things designed for government agents running propaganda videos. they are called shills and they get paid by the government to lie. Is the government lying not treason. Am I in the twilight zone? All social media are ultimately servants to the government.

    What this means is, that there is not longer separation between big Biz and government and no separation between the government suppressing free speech. We have all we nee to launch a class action suits, the people vs USA gov.

    Perhaps some might do well to study law rather than spout opinion with little thought. An attack against any one of us, is an attack on all of us. . . . MLK.

    • PJ London says:

      Oh the irony!
      ‘Perhaps some might do well to study law rather than spout opinion with little thought. ‘
      Could you please show where and when a law was passed on free speech.
      ‘The whole purpose of Free speech in the Bill of rights’ .
      The Bill of Rights does not now or ever guarantee free speech!
      What it guarantees is that the government will not pass a law prohibiting it.
      But on my property I do not have to permit anything. Nada. Zip.
      With regard to selected minorities and their right to enter licensed premises, if you take a licence then you have to abide by the rules of the licence. Not law, not tradition or custom, but the licensing rules. Even then, although Starbucks may not agree, you can make rules of behaviour and rules regulating how customers and users make use of your property.
      According to your thinking, every church should be required to allow Satanists, Muslims and Buddhists to stand up in or on the pulpit and spout whatever they want.
      Schools must allow whatever, oh wait, you have taken over the schools already. They are based on your thinking. I can flash my genitals in a young girls change room because I think I am entitled to.
      ‘Perhaps some might do well to study law rather than spout opinion with little thought. ‘

      • truth1 says:

        PJ, you seem to be unaware that the government is supposed to honor and defend the Bill of rights, which happen to include free speech. That being so, if the internet giants are really arms of the government thru proxy dummy corporations, those dummy corps are still required, as government operations, to protect and defend the Bill of rights. What this implies, is that the government is committing treason. So go ahead and stick your head in the sand, rather than the place you usually stick it. Yes, there isn’t a law out there that can not be twisted. But the bottom line is that we and our “elected*” *the CIA is not elected* government are supposed to honor free speech.

        Yes, of course, free speech can be twisted into anything when evil is around. And you want to help cover for the Covert operations of government as being legitimately owned private enterprise, then you and leftist buddies go right ahead. they are not private enterprise. Its government and business as one united entity, Sorry to shatter your fake world, Mr. Stalin.

        I am all for freedom of speech and yes, when evil rules, any freedom can be freedom for my enemies, when evil rules. And when evils rule, “the righteous go into hiding. You misconstrue what I suggested. I think immigration should be totally shut down. and anyone who opposes my rights of free speech, like you lefties, ought to all be rounded up and put in Walmart FEMA camps for safe keeping and slave labor to make up for all that welfare you all got along the way.

        What rock did you crawl out from under, any way? I want honesty from government and that means that citizens need to stop dignifying and hiding the fact that business and government are 1 entity united.

        You want some more, just let know, Joseph S.

        • PJ London says:

          No you idiot!
          The bill of rights says that government may not pass any laws that infringe on freedom of speech.
          Did you even read the comment?
          Individuals can do whatever they want with their property. Including websites and blogs.
          The only way that the Government can have any control over websites is to license them and deny sites to those who do not buy their licences.
          So you want to deny to others the right to decide who and what they do business with!
          You talk about freedom but only for you and those that agree with you.
          If you want a platform for people to say whatever they want, go ahead create a Facebook, Google, Twitter alternative.
          Jon does not (I don’t think) permit me to advertise products on this blog. I would not permit others to do so.
          Jon does not permit me (I would not permit) to advocate the murder of someone on this blog.
          Your are an idiot, pretending to be for freedom without any understanding of the concept.
          Stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
          ‘Perhaps some might do well to study law rather than spout opinion with little thought. ‘

          • truth1 says:

            I am not suggesting that we allow threats or scams or calls to violence or anything like that. nor even the breaking of laws like Satanic ritual abuse. But what goes on on say CIA-tube or CIA-Book, or Google CIA is blatant government censorship since the CIA is the funding and support for those supposed privately owned CIA dummy corporations. I want transparency. Yeah, I know, that is right there with the Easter bunny, but that is how it should be.

  14. John says:

    Jim Breyer and Gilman Louie are also members of the Rockefeller CFR. Google exec Eric Schmidt and Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg are CFR members. Google and Facebook are CFR corporate sponsors. See lists in the CFR annual report.

    Allen Dulles, who ran the CIA Operation Mockingbird, was a CFR director for 40 years. The names have changed, but the propaganda continues.

  15. kees says:

    Sorry people,crime payes,they have the laws and tugs to protect their criminal activity all in the name of national security.

    • Robert Graf says:

      You left out the the key piece: the school system, to tell the children that everything used to be perfect, thanks to the founding ‘fathers’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *