Connect with us

Media

Censorship must end: Why we’re leaving Patreon right after getting started

Published

on

Censorship must end Why were leaving Patreon right after getting started

NOQ Report was late to the game joining Patreon. We’ve relied in the past on GoFundMe campaigns but requests for a monthly subscription model prompted us to look at Patreon. We joined. Shortly after, news broke that prominent commentators we respect were going in a different direction.

Jordan B. Peterson, Dave Rubin ditch crowdfunding site Patreon to stand up for free speech

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/jordan-b-peterson-dave-rubin-ditch-crowdfunding-site-patreon-to-stand-up-for-free-speechA pair of influential Internet social and political commentators are putting their money where their mouths are, ditching crowd-funding site Patreon over its hate speech rules despite not having any viable alternative.

Dave Rubin raised money for his YouTube show, “The Rubin Report,” through Patreon until recently when he decided to fight back after the crowd-funding site banned participants who used language deemed offensive by the service. Best-selling author Jordan Peterson, a frequent Rubin guest whose lectures draw millions of views on YouTube and who gets funding from the service, joined Rubin in walking out on Patreon.

Admittedly, I didn’t pay too much attention to the news because the way it was framed, I didn’t realize they were leaving over censorship. I assumed from what I’d seen that they were exploring building a user-friendly alternative. It wasn’t until I dove into the story fully that I realized this wasn’t about building a competitor as much as it was about fighting censorship.

That’s all we needed to know to join them in taking a stand.

The funny part is yesterday I was tinkering with Patreon and posted about it. That’s when the emails and comments started coming in. One was straightforward in asking, “You realize Patreon opposes free speech, right?”

First, let me apologize for not exploring the story deeper when it was first breaking. I truly respect Peterson and Rubin and we’ve posted stories about both right here on NOQ Report.

Why the media just can’t handle Jordan Peterson

http://noqreport.com/2018/02/07/media-just-cant-handle-jordan-peterson/Watching the mainstream press try to interview University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, one thing becomes exceedingly clear: they literally can’t even.

While the above expression makes my inner grammar Nazi cry, it is possibly the best description of the predictable sequence of befuddled expressions, desperate strawmen, and whiffed shots fired at Peterson from a growing list of increasingly cautious media personalities.


What classical liberalism is, briefly

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/12/classical-liberalism-briefly/This video by classical liberal Dave Rubin at The Rubin Report breaks it down in less than two minutes.

Liberty-loving proponents of personal responsibility and self-governance have had our label taken from us. Today, a liberal is a progressive. It’s like saying a hamburger is a vegetable, but that’s the state of American understanding today.

This is, of course, part of the political war. Words have meaning, as leftists love to say, so they’ve done everything they can to change the meaning of many words. “Liberal” is one of them. They started with a lie and repeated it over and over again until it became… politics.

Second, let’s talk about censorship itself. This (thankfully) isn’t something that can invoke a political solution. Many are trying to turn to government to force “fairness” on private companies like Facebook, Google, and Patreon. Most who are calling for government intervention are supposed to be conservatives, which is odd since the conservative movement should be seeking solutions outside of government whenever possible.

This is a consumer market problem which means it requires a private citizen solution. Efforts by people like Peterson and Rubin to fight Patreon represent the right way to make changes such as these in America. Censorship is bad, but there’s no need for conservatives to call on DC to make Facebook, Google, or Patreon fair. They’re private businesses. They can do what they want and conservatives should be defending their rights to do so.

We’re very hopeful Peterson and Rubin can put together a Patreon-alternative soon. In the meantime, we’ve left Patreon and moved to a different provider. Censorship is rampant. If we don’t make our stand now, we may have no place to stand at all.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Media

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”

Published

on

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trumps physical barrier claims Mostly False

Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking agency PolitiFact has been accused of leaning dozens if not hundreds of their fact checks to favor the Democratic perspective on most issues. In one of the most egregious examples of partisan hacking, they declared a statement made by President Trump during his televised address to the nation as “Mostly False.”

Here’s the statement: Senator Charles Schumer “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

This is undeniably 100% true. It’s demonstrable that Schumer and many Democrats have supported physical barriers along the border in the recent past. Their support for changed sharply once then-candidate Trump started talking about needing a border wall, so technically speaking that portion of President Trump’s statement wasn’t entirely true. He said their support changed after he was elected, but it started changing a few months after he first entered the race.

Here’s a graph from Cato Institute that shows support from Democrats at over 40% in October, 2015, when it still seemed far fetched that he would win the nomination, let alone the general election. From that point, it took a nose dive.

Democratic Support for Border Wall

The portion of the PolitiFact article in which the author tries to justify the “Mostly False” rating attempts to distinguish between the differences in security barriers proposed by the President and accepted by Democrats in the past.

Did Democrats reverse border wall position after Donald Trump was elected?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/09/donald-trump/trump-democrats-reverse-border-wall-position/Schumer, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.

However, the fence was mocked as a “nothing wall” by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.

This logical gymnastics is farcical when we read the statement that is allegedly “Mostly False.” The President did not suggest nor has he ever believed the Democrats supported the type of wall he’s requesting. That’s why he was very specific in stating Schumer and the Democrats “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” instead of saying they supported his wall. This is important because for a fact-checker, the details are important.

They have repeatedly judged against conservatives for the tiniest nuance in their statements to attack. But when the statement is properly worded, as the President’s was, this fact checker decided to dig into intent rather than fact checking the statement itself. He penalized the statement as being false because he reconstructed what the President said as meaning something different. This is convenient selective inference on their part. But they’re completely unbiased. Just ask them.

When even the “trusted” fact checkers are willing to abandon ethics and call an obviously true statement false for the sake of political expediency, it’s no wonder so many Americans are frustrated with the entire mainstream media mechanism.

This is why we humbly request you support us with a donation so we can try to counterbalance the horrid leftism present in mainstream media.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Media

Mueller’s office debunks Buzzfeed’s report

Published

on

Muellers office debunks Buzzfeeds report

That didn’t take long.

After a flurry of reports surrounding a Buzzfeed article that claimed then-candidate Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, a statement from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has debunked it.

Spokesman Peter Carr says, “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

As we noted yesterday, Buzzfeed is not credible. Now, any remnant of credibility they had left is evaporating away. This is not a serious news outlet. They’re just a click-bait farm.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Media

Is Buzzfeed a credible news source?

Published

on

Is Buzzfeed a credible news source

Update: Debunked.

Original Story:

Is Buzzfeed credible? The short answer is, “not usually.” They have a penchant for silly articles like 13 Potatoes That Look Like Channing Tatum and Which Ousted Arab Spring Ruler Are You? But they have been getting serious about real journalism, and more importantly, they’ve been spending serious cash to establish themselves as a major news outlet.

Their latest bombshell is almost certainly their biggest to date if it’s true.

Donald Trump Told Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About Moscow Tower Project

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigationPresident Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.

For nearly three years, since just after candidate Trump was locked in as the GOP nominee in July, 2016, mainstream media has been screaming about the end for Trump. Every news cycle featured a bombshell, tipping point, or the beginning of the end for Trump, as was hilariously mashed up last year in a video.

But this time, we may have finally seen the actual beginning of the end. If the Buzzfeed story is accurate and if Robert Mueller’s report substantiates these accusations, there’s almost no way around it. President Trump will face impeachment, indictment after his term, or both. Of course, that’s a really big “if.”

Buzzfeed claims their two sources have more that just Michael Cohen’s testimony to back up the charges. They have “internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.” If this is true and links the President directly, it’s pretty much game over.

There are three reasons I’m personally skeptical.

  1. Mueller’s strategy. There is no question Robert Mueller is a calculating investigator. He doesn’t do anything without a purpose, and there doesn’t appear to be any purpose for such a stinging leak that is unlikely to yield better fruit than what they already allegedly have on the President. Moreover, Mueller is a spotlight guy. He’d prefer the grand reveal when his report comes out to a Buzzfeed scoop in the middle of January. And if the two members of his team that leaked the information did so independently, then it calls into question the motivations of his team. Either way, this doesn’t fit.
  2. Steele Dossier. Buzzfeed is the organization that received wide rebukes from journalists on both the right and left when they released the unredacted Steele Dossier. It is uncorroborated to this day and offered nothing but tabloid substance to the conversation. Their justification for releasing it was since it was being circulated among those in the highest levels of government, the people had the right to know about it. But when even the NY Times and Washington Post condemn the action, you know they went too far with their brand of journalism.
  3. Nobody else has it. Exclusives are hard to come by for top notch news outlets, especially of this magnitude. For Buzzfeed to be the recipient of such riches while nobody else has it is far-fetched. If the members of the Mueller team who leaked the information wanted to go for maximum effect, they would have gone elsewhere. If they were getting paid, then they’re in big trouble. Again, this is very fishy.

Of course, there’s this…

…and this:

If this is real, the President is in trouble. That’s a huge “if” when we consider the source. But if Buzzfeed is the publication that brings down the President, it may be a sign of the times. I have serious doubts, but we’ll find out soon enough.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report