The Globalist American Empire (GAE) has been amping up censorship efforts in the wake of the disputed 2020 election. So far, the most blatant act of tech totalitarianism has been the banning of the sitting President from most major social media platforms. This is hardly the final step in their plans, however. Not content with merely banning Donald Trump, our corrupt ruling class won’t stop until all of his allies are banned as well and all of his supporters identified as enemies of the state.
(Article republished from Revolver.news)
Two regime eunuchs recently outlined the regime’s plans for further censorship in a segment on regime media outlet CNN.
Former Facebook insider Alex Stamos tells @brianstelter: "We have to turn down the capability of these Conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences… There are people on YouTube for example that have a larger audience than daytime CNN." pic.twitter.com/gP0XtnjhCQ
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 17, 2021
Alex Stamos is the former Chief Security Officer of Facebook. He resigned from that position in 2018 when the company refused to accuse the Russian government of intervening in the 2016 election. He has since become the head of the “Stanford Internet Observatory.” He was interviewed by rotund CNN media correspondent and hysterical anti-Trump liberal Brian Stelter as a third man watched from the shadows.
Alex Stamos: It’s really hard because what’s happening is people are able to seek out the information that makes them feel good. People have so much choice now. They can choose what their news sources are. They can choose what influencers they want to follow. They can try to seal out anything that helps them question that.
I think that gets to a really core issue with how our freedom as Americans, and the way we’ve treated press freedom in the past, is being abused by these actors. We have given a lot of leeway both in the traditional media and on social media to people to have a very broad range of political views. And it is now in the great economic interest of those individuals to become more and more radical.
Stamos would be correct if he was talking about the mainstream media’s push to normalize open borders, child gender transitions, and prison abolition. Of course, that’s not the radicalism he’s talking about. The radicalism he’s talking about is people who voted for the 45th President of the United States.
Back to the transcript:
Stamos: One of the places you can see this is the fact that you know have competitors to Fox News on their Right — OANN, Newsmax — which are carried by all the major cable networks, who are trying to now outflank Fox on the right because the moment Fox introduced any kind of realism into their reporting, immediately a bunch of people chose to put themselves into a sealed ecosystem. And they can do that both on cable, they can do it online, and that becomes a huge challenge in figuring out, how do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensual reality.
Here we see Stamos ominously mention that OANN and Newsmax are carried by all major cable television providers (he erroneously refers to “providers” as “networks”). Despite his verbal slip, his intention is clear. CNN has been actively campaigning for weeks to have rival news networks deplatformed by cable providers. CNN would like Fox News banned in addition to OANN and Newsmax. Stamos is somewhat more conciliatory and thinks Fox News should be allowed to stay on the air, as long as they remain anti-Trump.
Brian Stelter: And can, is that possible? It seems like that’s an open question.
Stamos: It’s hard, I think we have to do a couple things. One, there needs to be an intentional work by the social media companies, collaborating together, to work on violent extremism in the same way they worked on ISIS. When I started at Facebook in 2015, the number one challenge from a content perspective was the abuse of social media by the Islamic State. And there was a collaboration between the tech companies and law enforcement to make it impossible for them to use the internet to recruit and radicalize mostly young Muslim men, at that time, around the world. Now we’re talking about a domestic audience in the United States.
Here Stamos draws a clear parallel between supporters of Donald Trump and members of ISIS, an Islamic fundamentalist group responsible for acts of genocide and mass rape, which, ironically, was largely defeated by the US military under President Trump and the Russian military under President Putin.
Stamos: The challenge is going to be partially that ISIS did not have a domestic constituency in the United States Congress. But over half of the Republicans in Congress voted to overturn the election. And there will be a continual political pressure on the companies to not take it seriously. So I think first, you have to focus on those violent extremists, and those companies need to be brave in that way.
Not content to merely label rank and file Republicans as the equivalent of Islamist terrorists, Stamos also says the same of half the Republicans in Congress. Do you think our elites will tolerate ISIS in Congress? BLM Activist and newly elected Congresswoman Cori Bush recently called for congressmen who questioned the 2020 election to be expelled from Congress. Because nothing says “defending democracy” like banning opposition political parties and denying a quarter of the population political representation.
And second, we have to turn down the capability of these conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences. There are people on YouTube, for example, that have a larger audience than daytime CNN. And they are extremely radical in pushing extremely radical views. And so, it’s up to the Facebooks and YouTubes in particular, to think about whether or not they want to be effectively cable networks for disinformation.
Leftists activists have been complaining about “YouTube radicalization” for years. They think people become conservatives and patriotic nationalists because they are hypnotized by videos of Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes. If the videos are banned, they reason, people will stop becoming conservative. In actuality, people seek out these videos because the material reality around them has already made them question the system run and controlled by America’s corrupt ruling class. This is not to say that deplatforming isn’t something conservatives should be worried about. It’s just that deplatforming conservatives is a band aid the ruling class tries to place over the gaping wound that is the obvious failure of their system.
And then we’re going to have to figure out the OANN and Newsmax problem. These companies have freedom of speech, but I’m not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such, to be bringing them into tens of millions of homes. This is allowing people to seek out information if they really want to, but not pushing it into their faces. I think this is where we’re going to have to go here. [CNN]
Here we see the deplatforming agenda made explicit. Stamos names by name every major cable provider and “muses” that they should stop providing OANN and Newsmax. Again fancying himself a moderate, Stamos says that these channels shouldn’t be banned outright, they just shouldn’t be “pushed into people’s faces.” Perhaps they should still be allowed to broadcast, but only if people are forced to seek out their broadcasts on HAM radios or the dark web?
It goes without saying that such extreme measures shouldn’t be necessary to access the free press in a free society. Whether America is a free society or not is debatable.
In light of all the comparisons, made nonchalantly on the nation’s largest news channel, between normal patriotic Americans and an Islamist terrorist group that was the media’s number one boogeyman four years ago, it’s temping to say that conservatives may end up getting the same treatment. You’d be wrong though. The United States government supplied weapons to ISIS.