Social-media companies acted in direct response to the White House calling out the so-called “Disinformation Dozen.” Evidence in the case proves that they acted to deplatform those branded within 24 hours of the White House publicly identifying them.
One of the very first actions the White House took was directing social platforms to REMOVE the content that suggested that Hank Aaron may have died because of the vaccine. Flaherty then went on to demand social-media companies remove other posts and people from their platforms. These weren’t suggestions, they were DEMANDS. (I would argue the removal of this information directly resulted in death, not the opposite, as the government would claim. But that is my personal opinion.)
White House director of digital communications Rob Flaherty actually did what I have highlighted here. He cursed at, screamed at, patronized, and generally abused the execs at these companies. When they did not do what he told them to, he treated them like a battered spouse and threatened them— harshly. Just an evil way to behave.
Please read these. He curses at, threatens, demands, sarcastically berates, and more. A lot is detailed here. There was more. I did a deeper dive here if you want more details.
NONE OF THIS IS LEGAL under the First Amendment.
In one of the more immoral and heartbreaking exchanges, Meta [which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp] lets the government know that they heard their calls for more censorship: they decided that in response to White House pressure they would remove content that in their words was “often true.”
What content, groups, and pages? That of the vaccine-injured sharing their horrific stories and finding some community support online, when everyone they turned to for assistance refused to help or to acknowledge them. This one needs to be viral. These poor people.
They also assured the White House they would limit message forwards on the supposedly “private” text messaging platform WhatsApp, gave detailed reports on censorship to government bureaucrats, and would censor “non violative content, such as dissuading the choice to vaccinate in terms of personal or civil liberties,” and “concerns related to mistrust in institutions.” Think about this for a second. The government—the people you “elected” to represent you, are having social-media companies censor talk about your individual rights and criticism of them.
That’s all for today, folks, lest this email get too big for your inboxes. Stay tuned tomorrow for Part 4, where Tracy’s coverage of this week’s events in court continues. In the meantime, you may want to follow Tracy if you are on Twitter and thank her for her excellent coverage of this case.
Reprinted from the author’s Substack
Sourced from Brownstone Institute
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.