Censorship

pigfarmer

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
nivek

nivek

As Above So Below

Jim Jordan details the wild scheme between Biden officials and Amazon to censor 'sensitive' anti-vaccine materials - as White House denies being 'coercive'​

Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan released fresh details about the close collaboration between the Biden White House and Amazon to deplatform books they deemed 'sensitive' - as White House officials insisted they never 'coerced' private companies.

On March 2, 2021, White House advisor Andrew Slavitt reached out to Amazon. 'Who can we talk to about the high levels of propaganda and misinformation or disinformation at the White House?'

Amazon initially resisted White House pressure to restrict anti-vaccine material.

'We will not be doing a manual intervention today,' one email between Amazon executives read. 'The team/PR feels very strongly that it is too visible, and will further compound the Harry/Sally narrative (which is getting the Fox News treatment today apparently), and won't fix the problem long-term … because of customer behavior associates.'

And ahead of a March 9, 2021 meeting between the White House and Amazon officials, a 'pre-brief' email to Amazon employees emphasized a 'top talking point': 'Is the admin asking us to remove books, or are they more concerned about search results/order or both?'

But the very day of the meeting Amazon immediately adopted a 'do not promote' category for anti-vaccine books listed on its website.

'The impetus for this request is criticism from the Biden administration about sensitive books we're giving prominent placement to, and should be handled urgently,' an Amazon official wrote in an email to other staffers.

In another internal email, an Amazon official expresses urgency in making the changes to shadow-ban anti-vaccine content 'due to criticism from the Biden people.'

'The next 4 months of vaccine response/adoption are going to be critical,' the official writes.

They suggested removing the books from sale entirely, because 'search data shows customers who buy this content are looking for specific books and using high intent queries, which means customers will likely continue to consume this content in spite of our warnings.'

By March 12, Amazon wanted to take further steps to crack down on anti-vaccine books because they were 'feeling pressure from the White House Taskforce.'

Amazon wasn't alone in bending to the Biden administration's wishes to deplatform content that could sow doubt about the Covid-19 vaccines - Twitter, now X, and Facebook felt the heat too.

Jordan went after Slavitt and Rob Flaherty, a key White House communications staffer, in a censorship hearing on Wednesday.

(More on the link)

.
 
Dejan Corovic

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
I feel a bit new, and to be honest very confused. How can any kind of opinion be banned in democracy?

That really bothers me, because I grew up in socialism, where all opinions were banned. Now, in "supposed democracy" all kinds of opinions are banned left-right-and-centre? With exceptions of inciting violence and racial hatred, and a very small number of state secretes, all opinions should be sacrosanct.

I really think that censorship should be criminalised, and legally treated as an attempted attack on constitutional system. Any official suggesting that this or that opinion should be suppressed should immediately be suspended, pending full investigation and possibly disciplinary action or dismissal.
 
J Randall Murphy

J Randall Murphy

Trying To Stay Awake
Dejan Corovic said:
I feel a bit new, and to be honest very confused. How can any kind of opinion be banned in democracy?
Click to expand...
Well — A pure democracy is basically tyranny by the majority. So if the majority wants something banned, that's what happens. A better approach is what's called a constitutional republic that insulates specified individual civil liberties from the tyranny of the majority.
Dejan Corovic said:
That really bothers me, because I grew up in socialism, where all opinions were banned. Now, in "supposed democracy" all kinds of opinions are banned left-right-and-centre? With exceptions of inciting violence and racial hatred, and a very small number of state secretes, all opinions should be sacrosanct.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there are always those who want to erode individual civil liberties so that they can exercise control.
Dejan Corovic said:
I really think that censorship should be criminalised, and legally treated as an attempted attack on constitutional system.
Click to expand...
Criminalization of censorship is going too far the other way. We need to be very careful there. Rather than criminalizing censorship per sé, laws around certain things that censorship can be used for e.g. preventing election manipulation or libel is a better approach.
Dejan Corovic said:
Any official suggesting that this or that opinion should be suppressed should immediately be suspended, pending full investigation and possibly disciplinary action or dismissal.
Click to expand...
Again — I think that's going too far. Generally speaking, notwithstanding such things as conflict of interest, everyone ( including officials )people should be free to to suggest whatever they want in an appropriate forum — but that's just my opinion. I also think that you should be free to express yours !
 
Dejan Corovic

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
J Randall Murphy said:
Well — A pure democracy is basically tyranny by the majority. So if the majority wants something banned, that's what happens. A better approach is what's called a constitutional republic that insulates specified individual civil liberties from the tyranny of the majority.

The problem is that there are always those who want to erode individual civil liberties so that they can exercise control.

Criminalization of censorship is going too far the other way. We need to be very careful there. Rather than criminalizing censorship per sé, laws around certain things that censorship can be used for e.g. preventing election manipulation or libel is a better approach.

Again — I think that's going too far. Generally speaking, notwithstanding such things as conflict of interest, everyone ( including officials )people should be free to to suggest whatever they want in an appropriate forum — but that's just my opinion. I also think that you should be free to express yours !
Click to expand...

For me its not even about democracy, but about how quickly democracy can be completely eroded, by democratically elected government.

I was just watching a video about Salvador's president, who in the name of getting rid of criminals, suddenly started putting journalists in a prison, and generally anybody who criticised him. I think that some constitutional rights need to have elevated protection and require much higher approval threshold if executive wants to change them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top