When govts and censors from private firms target individuals like this, they should be sued. Same goes for targeting your free speech rights. And our corrupt media is also complicit in this.
“Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, 𝕏 has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket.
Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution.”
“Watch Ben Shapiro Tear into Censorship Cartel in Fiery Congressional Testimony
“We’re in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was trafficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people.
“So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn’t really why the legacy media have lost Americans’ trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands.“
Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Nevermind the yarmulke.“
Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging. In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter, ‘You created these platforms and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising.“
In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you’re not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it’s nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you’re not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled. We at Daily Wire have experienced this firsthand. In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, the Daily Wire YouTube channel saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions.“
Or take Joe Rogan. When Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, ‘We want every platform to be doing more to call out missing disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.’ Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM.“
So what are the brand safety standards that GARM uses? The standards begin with inarguable things that we’ve heard from the other witnesses, like preventing the distribution of child sexual abuse material or stopping terrorism. But GARM doesn’t draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous. Their standards also include restrictions on hate speech, harassment, misinformation, or, my personal favorite, insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues. Those criteria are highly subjective in theory, and they are purely partisan in practice. For example, last year, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was fully demonetized on YouTube, a GARM member. Why? For quote-unquote misgendering, which to GARM is to say that men are not women. Perfectly obvious facts now run afoul of GARM’s censorship standards.“
Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It’s time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress.“
Congress can do so in two ways. First, Congress must investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. The Daily Wire has already filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department for allegedly doing just this. Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles. Two weeks ago, writing a dissent in Murthy versus Missouri, Justice Alito condemned what he called sophisticated and coercive government campaigns against free speech.“
Members of this committee have engaged in precisely such campaigns. When Congressman Schiff speaks about targeting social media companies that must be, quote, ‘pulled and dragged into this era of corporate responsibility because they are too tolerant of misinformation,’ he knows what he is doing. He is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congresswoman Jayapal blames social media for placing America at the precipice of a democratic crisis and calls on them to target what they deem hate groups, she also knows what she is doing. She is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congressman Hank Johnson says, quote, ‘We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,’ he also knows what he is doing.“
We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You’re using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don’t particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you’re abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.”
That’s what the GOP is successful in doing when it comes to abortion. They’ve made it possible for Trump to abandon his support for pro-life principles, while voters abandon their pro-life principles to support Trump.
Addressing the words of the writer of the article. No…at least this voter is not “abandoning” her pro life principles in voting for Trump. What a sanctimonious assertion! And no, this Christian voter will not sit on her hands and do nothing. I will indeed oppose the party celebrating and encouraging the murder of pre born and born children. I will oppose the party endorsing transitioning genders of children, allowing perverts to read to our children in libraries and schools. Keep it up trying to guilt believers for doing what is right. Vote your own conscience but do not assume nor judge those with a solid constitution.
President Joe Biden’s pivotal press conference (pushed back twice) showed he still struggles with live events. The press conference, dubbed a “Big Boy” media gaggle, was another critical moment for Biden:
They didn’t become pro choice, they simply are excepting reality. If you don’t include exceptions for mother’s health and rape, any effort will fail in court. The Supreme Court said as much when kicking g this back to the states.
Also, seeking a national ban on abortion is a non starter. That’s reality, it will fail massively by rallying the pro abortion people nation wide. Trump and the other pragmatic realists see this.
Yhis reads just like just another of Joe’s “I don’t like Trump so I will say whatever because I can’t agree with him even when he’s right”.
And he is right. Abortion isn’t going anywhere. While that pains me, I can accept that reality. That doesn’t make me pro choice, and it doesn’t make Trump, Rubio, or others pro choice either.
This is that simplistic “if you aren’t with us you’re with the terrorists” nonsense Bush made popular again.
Prolifers have always said it should be a states issue, and now that it is thanks to Trump and his Supreme Court appointments, it’s suddenly the pro abortion stance?
That’s hogwash.
I’d much prefer a realistic approach that limits it where it can be, and how it can be limited, but accepts the reality that it’s not going away. Same for the abortion drug, it’s not suddenly going to become illegal. Limit access,that’s fine, but it’s not gonna go away. Pipe dreams to the contrary are bad policy that will fail court scrutiny.
Or for those who are still curious, blow is one of his past pieces linked in the article Cheryl shared.
I understand realism and think the nation is at that point where it could be argued that poses the most realistic way forward in a nation that has grown very accustomed over 50 years to abortion being legal.
But it does call into question where believers (personally) will draw the line. Same with the issue of character.
Carter, in the 2017 piece linked below, argues for “convictional inaction,” a term I’d not heard before (and I must have missed reading this piece 8 years ago?).
~ Convictional inaction refuses to support any political candidate, organization, or party that advocates for or turns a blind eye to gross immorality and injustice. Every Christian in America would refuse to vote for any candidate—regardless of political party—who supports such gross injustices as abortion or who covers up immorality, including sexual assault. ~
He points out the very obvious flaw in his own argument — that this would take a mass movement which is highly unlikely to ever happen.
Still, these are interesting reads and it’s important for believers to at least consider and think about these issues.
So why stop with political leaders? Shall we not purchase clothes,food, medicine etc due to the company endorsing,creating or encouraging leftist agenda? Believe me when I discover companies doing such I personally boycott them. Do I know all of the politics of all companies? No. I believe we would all go naked and hungry if we did know.
Other believers will argue that the US is a pluralistic society —
“where many groups and political parties coexist and have an active role in the governing process. These groups are determined by shared beliefs, causes, or cultures where they maintain their unique values and work collaboratively with other groups to better society.
We have many shared values but also stark differences and must find ways (practically or politically) to coexist with a give-and-take, to some degree, if the nation is to hold together.
For believers, some of our personal views of where this all means may speak to what we ultimately believe about the end times? — premillennialists see the world getting worse; postmillennialists see the world as getting better (though that may take a very long time); amillennialists include many who may hold the “two-kingdom” view.
Wandering Views 
When govts and censors from private firms target individuals like this, they should be sued. Same goes for targeting your free speech rights. And our corrupt media is also complicit in this.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1811360296218341403?t=KKgyXOkYiieBbpXlkWy4SA&s=19
“Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, 𝕏 has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket.
Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution.”
——
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1811056137640530235?t=JPMUURJ5q63JwhBdV5-AAA&s=19
“Watch Ben Shapiro Tear into Censorship Cartel in Fiery Congressional Testimony
“We’re in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was trafficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people.
“So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn’t really why the legacy media have lost Americans’ trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands.“
Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Nevermind the yarmulke.“
Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging. In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter, ‘You created these platforms and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising.“
In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you’re not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it’s nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you’re not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled. We at Daily Wire have experienced this firsthand. In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, the Daily Wire YouTube channel saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions.“
Or take Joe Rogan. When Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, ‘We want every platform to be doing more to call out missing disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.’ Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM.“
So what are the brand safety standards that GARM uses? The standards begin with inarguable things that we’ve heard from the other witnesses, like preventing the distribution of child sexual abuse material or stopping terrorism. But GARM doesn’t draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous. Their standards also include restrictions on hate speech, harassment, misinformation, or, my personal favorite, insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues. Those criteria are highly subjective in theory, and they are purely partisan in practice. For example, last year, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was fully demonetized on YouTube, a GARM member. Why? For quote-unquote misgendering, which to GARM is to say that men are not women. Perfectly obvious facts now run afoul of GARM’s censorship standards.“
Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It’s time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress.“
Congress can do so in two ways. First, Congress must investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. The Daily Wire has already filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department for allegedly doing just this. Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles. Two weeks ago, writing a dissent in Murthy versus Missouri, Justice Alito condemned what he called sophisticated and coercive government campaigns against free speech.“
Members of this committee have engaged in precisely such campaigns. When Congressman Schiff speaks about targeting social media companies that must be, quote, ‘pulled and dragged into this era of corporate responsibility because they are too tolerant of misinformation,’ he knows what he is doing. He is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congresswoman Jayapal blames social media for placing America at the precipice of a democratic crisis and calls on them to target what they deem hate groups, she also knows what she is doing. She is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congressman Hank Johnson says, quote, ‘We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,’ he also knows what he is doing.“
We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You’re using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don’t particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you’re abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.”
LikeLiked by 5 people
Jesus is King.
Somehow that’s all I can think of when I hear the name Ben Shapiro. Not a bad thing, although I think he might disagree. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
How the GOP Became Pro-Choice (by Joe Carter): https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-the-gop-became-pro-choice/
LikeLike
That’s what the GOP is successful in doing when it comes to abortion. They’ve made it possible for Trump to abandon his support for pro-life principles, while voters abandon their pro-life principles to support Trump.
Addressing the words of the writer of the article. No…at least this voter is not “abandoning” her pro life principles in voting for Trump. What a sanctimonious assertion! And no, this Christian voter will not sit on her hands and do nothing. I will indeed oppose the party celebrating and encouraging the murder of pre born and born children. I will oppose the party endorsing transitioning genders of children, allowing perverts to read to our children in libraries and schools. Keep it up trying to guilt believers for doing what is right. Vote your own conscience but do not assume nor judge those with a solid constitution.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Boston Herald
President Joe Biden’s pivotal press conference (pushed back twice) showed he still struggles with live events. The press conference, dubbed a “Big Boy” media gaggle, was another critical moment for Biden:
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s a lousey piece Cheryl.
They didn’t become pro choice, they simply are excepting reality. If you don’t include exceptions for mother’s health and rape, any effort will fail in court. The Supreme Court said as much when kicking g this back to the states.
Also, seeking a national ban on abortion is a non starter. That’s reality, it will fail massively by rallying the pro abortion people nation wide. Trump and the other pragmatic realists see this.
Yhis reads just like just another of Joe’s “I don’t like Trump so I will say whatever because I can’t agree with him even when he’s right”.
And he is right. Abortion isn’t going anywhere. While that pains me, I can accept that reality. That doesn’t make me pro choice, and it doesn’t make Trump, Rubio, or others pro choice either.
This is that simplistic “if you aren’t with us you’re with the terrorists” nonsense Bush made popular again.
Prolifers have always said it should be a states issue, and now that it is thanks to Trump and his Supreme Court appointments, it’s suddenly the pro abortion stance?
That’s hogwash.
I’d much prefer a realistic approach that limits it where it can be, and how it can be limited, but accepts the reality that it’s not going away. Same for the abortion drug, it’s not suddenly going to become illegal. Limit access,that’s fine, but it’s not gonna go away. Pipe dreams to the contrary are bad policy that will fail court scrutiny.
Allen
LikeLiked by 4 people
Or for those who are still curious, blow is one of his past pieces linked in the article Cheryl shared.
I understand realism and think the nation is at that point where it could be argued that poses the most realistic way forward in a nation that has grown very accustomed over 50 years to abortion being legal.
But it does call into question where believers (personally) will draw the line. Same with the issue of character.
Carter, in the 2017 piece linked below, argues for “convictional inaction,” a term I’d not heard before (and I must have missed reading this piece 8 years ago?).
~ Convictional inaction refuses to support any political candidate, organization, or party that advocates for or turns a blind eye to gross immorality and injustice. Every Christian in America would refuse to vote for any candidate—regardless of political party—who supports such gross injustices as abortion or who covers up immorality, including sexual assault. ~
He points out the very obvious flaw in his own argument — that this would take a mass movement which is highly unlikely to ever happen.
Still, these are interesting reads and it’s important for believers to at least consider and think about these issues.
~ https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nonpartisan-solution-roy-moore-problem/
LikeLike
*below
LikeLike
So why stop with political leaders? Shall we not purchase clothes,food, medicine etc due to the company endorsing,creating or encouraging leftist agenda? Believe me when I discover companies doing such I personally boycott them. Do I know all of the politics of all companies? No. I believe we would all go naked and hungry if we did know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Other believers will argue that the US is a pluralistic society —
“where many groups and political parties coexist and have an active role in the governing process. These groups are determined by shared beliefs, causes, or cultures where they maintain their unique values and work collaboratively with other groups to better society.
We have many shared values but also stark differences and must find ways (practically or politically) to coexist with a give-and-take, to some degree, if the nation is to hold together.
For believers, some of our personal views of where this all means may speak to what we ultimately believe about the end times? — premillennialists see the world getting worse; postmillennialists see the world as getting better (though that may take a very long time); amillennialists include many who may hold the “two-kingdom” view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NJ, no one argues that this isn’t all complicated 🙂 And we will fall into different positions and decisions, even as believers.
LikeLike