Connect with us

Opinions

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

Published

on

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

When news broke today that Ed and Brian Krassenstein from #Resistance fame had their Twitter accounts permanently banned, reactions from both sides were predictable. Those on the left pointed at the event and said, “see there’s no Twitter conspiracy against conservatives.” Meanwhile, conservatives’ reactions were mixed between thinking it was Twitter’s attempt to balance things out so they don’t get sued all the way up to rejoicing that the site may have finally learned its lesson.

None of this is true. According to Twitter, they were banned for using bots and paid engagement.

“The Twitter Rules apply to everyone,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement. “Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.”

While the brothers will go down in Twitter history as a rare example of prominent progressives getting banned, the reality is their removals from the site were economic. That’s rarely the case for conservatives who get banned for hateful speech or whatever the latest label is for telling people to “learn to code.” In fact, I don’t recall a single conservative getting banned for paid engagement or bot use. It happens, I’m sure, but as far as I can recall it hasn’t been the reason for any major political accounts to get the ax.

Either way, I oppose this and nearly all bannings that aren’t the result of spam, illegal activity like doxxing, spreading malware, or porn. If they want to stop bots and paid promotions, they should be catching these accounts and sending them stern messages. They can reduce their visibility. But if someone artificially inflates their engagement without using Twitter ads, they can and should be dealt with in ways that fall short of getting banned. Same holds true for most “hateful speech” that seems to unfairly target conservatives. Again, as long as the speech used is not breaking the law, it should be allowed.

Or, Twitter could simply establish that it’s a content site and not simply a platform. They would lose their protections, but at least they would be in line with the letter of the law. As it stands, they get platform protections while acting to police activities that are against the notion of free speech and therefore should not be allowed to continue getting platform protections.

Speech is free or it isn’t.

Comparing the Krassenstein’s permanent suspensions to any of the recent prominent conservative account suspensions is invalid. They weren’t banned for what they said. They were banned for bots and paid promotion. Conservatives are still being targeted.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Democrats

The 1st Democratic debate was worse than expected, which is saying a lot

Published

on

The 1st Democratic debate was worse than expected which is saying a lot

If you were going into the 1st Democratic candidates debate with hopes of seeing pandering, high-dollar policy proposals, pandering, cringeworthy attempts to generate memes, questions answered in Spanish, unhinged notions on sexuality, cheerleaders in the media, and pandering, you got it.

In lieu of highlighting the gaffes, attempts at soundbites, and uncomfortable moments, it’s better to leave it to Twitter hot takes to do the job. Presented in no particular order:

One of the biggest reasons this was so bad is because they did everything they could to one-up one another. I know that’s what’s supposed to happen in debates, but there was a strange feeling that so many of them were saying the exact same thing while contradicting one another. I’m not really sure how they were able to pull it off.

But the part for me that raised an eyebrow was Julian Castro’s invocation of “Reproductive Justice.” He wants to give equal rights to abortion for transgender women. He’s ahead of the curve on this one; medical science hasn’t advanced to make that even possible, yet.

It’s been said already many times, but it’s worth repeating. President Trump won tonight’s debate. He came out looking like someone with solid policies compared to the unhinged “solutions” being proposed by these Democratic candidates.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

What is the source of the Democrats’ obstruction strategy?

Published

on

What is the source of the Democrats obstruction strategy

The evolution of the Mueller investigation and the overall Russian collusion hoax has been an interesting one to watch, especially for those of us who have a long enough memory to note this was supposed to be about the Trump campaign colluding with foreign entities to “steal” the 2016 election. That was the storyline for nearly two years, but since the release of the Mueller report, which indicated no collusion at all, the talking points of the Democrats have been 100% focused on obstruction.

Keep in mind, this was never supposed to be an obstruction investigation. That notion is, by its very nature, a separate occurrence that’s usually associated with wrongdoing to begin with, otherwise what was being obstructed? If there was no collusion, and the obstruction that was allegedly committed was supposed to stop the investigation into the collusion, then the only thing being obstructed was a bogus investigation. That doesn’t make obstruction right; even bogus investigations need to be allowed to reach their conclusion. But it’s a far cry from the narrative being pushed out by the Democrats, one which begs the question and relies on circular reasoning.

But that’s not being looked into by many, other than The Epoch Times.

This excellent video by Declassified’s Gina Shakespeare details a media investigation into the investigators that cuts to the heart of the matter. There was no collusion and any obstruction had to be manufactured. But the left continues to push it.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Opinions

Big tech has transitioned from ‘we don’t censor conservatives’ to ‘we do and you can’t stop us’

Published

on

Big tech has transitioned from we dont censor conservatives to we do and you cant stop us

Project Veritas has been lifting back the veil covering big tech companies and their nefarious activities following the 2016 election. They tried to play left-leaning-but-mostly-fair before the 2016 election, believing in their hearts that Hillary Clinton would be President without their concerted meddling. That didn’t work out for them, so they are trying to prevent “another Trump situation” in 2020 by unabashedly purging, silencing, and censoring conservatives on platforms like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.

The answers delivered today before Congress in response to questions by Representative Dan Crenshaw weren’t the standard denials. They were politically manipulative answers designed to make it known they’re doing what we’ve said they were doing all along, but they feel justified in doing it because “hate speech” must be stopped at all costs. Of course, what constitutes hate speech to the social justice warriors in big tech invariably circles around conservative thought. There is no form of hate speech short of physical threats that can be attributed to progressives, at least not in the minds of the people who control big tech. If conservatives are aggressive, they’re delivering hate speech. If progressives are aggressive, they’re just being truthful. That’s what big tech thinks.

This is the worst-case scenario for conservatives. Before, we could call them liars and cheats. Now, we have to fight them on an ideological level, and while we have the truth on our side, they have the technology. They have the eyeballs. They control what people see and don’t see. And as such, they can no longer be trusted to deliver anything even remotely close to fair and balanced. They’re unhinged from reality, but instead of coming back to reality once exposed, they’re building a new reality around their ideologies.

It’s not enough that they help Democrats. They have taken it upon themselves to promote a radical progressive ideology in response to President Trump’s victory. By pushing the American collective consciousness to the left with their insane levels of influence, they feel they can win the debate by eliminating the competition altogether.

And unfortunately, they may be right.

In the past, I’ve been opposed to the idea of declawing these companies by taking away their protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which denotes them as platforms that are not liable for the content their users post. But this protection comes with the caveat that they not act as publishers who expand their belief system through the platforms through the aforementioned purging, silencing, and censoring techniques. Since that’s not the case and possibly never was, this protection must be removed immediately.

If they’re going to censor based on their sensibilities as publishers, then they are not truly platforms and must not be granted protections true platforms receive. It’s time to spank them for the bad things they do. Otherwise, America may be lost.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending