Connect with us

Tech

Campus Reform Media Director Endorses Social Media Gulags for Conservatives

He doesn’t care if he loses his freedom of speech so long as it’s at the hands of a corporation

Published

on

Campus Reform Social Media Gulag

Cabot Phillips, the media director for Campus Reform and former Marco Rubio stooge, decreed that conservatives must stop dickering about big tech systematically censoring prominent voices and submit themselves to the nearest social media gulag.

Over the course of several tweets, Phillips told conservatives that it is unbecoming to complain about massive social media giants appearing to collude in order to ban effective conservative voices during the aftermath of Facebook and Instagram’s decision to ban Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos from their platforms.

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

He also made snotty remarks toward Watson and Infowars’ Kaitlin Bennett, who simply warned him his silence and complicity could easily make him the next target for a ban.

In one tweet, he mocked Watson for linking to his content in previous reports, revealing that he knew the exact number of times he received coveted attention from Infowars.

In another, Phillips snarkily informed Bennett that she and Infowars are not True Conservatives™.

Ironically, it is Sen. Ted Cruz, perhaps the most mainstream and popular conservative in the Senate, who has outlined three possible solutions to end the plague of tech censorship against conservatives.

According to Life Site News, Cruz recommended revisiting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as one possible solution.

The first, he suggested, was reviewing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which Cruz argued effectively grants platforms a “special immunity from liability” for the content they allow, predicated on the assumption that they are “neutral public forums” rather than publishers exercising subjective preferences.

“If Big Tech wants to be partisan and political speakers it has that right, but it has no entitlement to a special immunity from liability under Section 230 that The New York Times doesn’t enjoy, that The Washington Post doesn’t enjoy, that nobody else enjoys except for Big Tech,” Cruz noted.

As a second possible solution, Cruz pointed toward possible antitrust violations committed by the tech oligarchs.

“Applying the antitrust laws is complicated, but by any standard measure, the big tech companies are larger and more powerful than the Standard Oil was when it was broken up,” Cruz said. “They’re larger and more powerful than AT&T when it was broken up, and if we have tech companies using their monopoly to censor political speech, I think that raises real antitrust issues.”

Finally, Cruz explained that social media companies presenting themselves as bastions of free speech and expression then banning users for their political views could represent widespread fraud.

The third remedy Cruz suggested would be exploring whether biased enforcement of what most users assume to be neutral and open forums constitutes fraud. Conservative pundit Dennis Prager is currently suing Google on similar grounds for its restrictions on his Prager University YouTube videos. Among the suit’s complaints is that YouTube’s restrictions under false pretenses constitute breach of contract.

“Most users of Facebook, Twitter,  Google, when they use those services they don’t envision they’re participating in a biased fora,” he said. “They believe that when they speak they people that choose to follow them will hear what they say and there are distressing pieces of evidence that suggest that’s not the case.”

Considering Cruz is one of the members of Congress leading the charge against tech censorship, this paints Phillips as either stunningly uninformed, or as a hack who would rather virtue signal about conservative principles than examine whether there are actual violations of the law when it comes to the unending series of tech censorship examples.

On Thursday, Big League Politics reported that Facebook provided us with a statement outlining their plan to censor all Facebook users who link to Infowars content without explicitly condemning Alex Jones. This new plan reaches beyond merely banning an individual, extending the ban to anyone who has the audacity to think positively about Jones.

Big League Politics reported:

In an attempt to clarify its stance, Facebook told Big League Politics that the platform will let users make posts complimentary about Infowars or reflecting them in a positive nature, but will not allow users to post links to Infowars videos, unless they are doing so to condemn the content.

This would seem to mean that simply linking to the Infowars website is now prohibited, as virtually every article includes videos featuring Jones, and a live stream or replay of the most recent episode of “The Alex Jones Show” is featured on the sidebar of the Infowars website.

It appears Phillips is indeed uninformed, or willfully ignorant, of the current crisis.

Tech

Reddit Forced to Amend New Terms of Service After Carving Out Hate Speech Exemption Against Whites

Reddit was called on their anti-white TOS.

Published

on

Social media giant Reddit has been forced to amend their new terms of service after they were called out for their anti-white bias.

Quillette writer Colin Wright noted on Sunday that Reddit’s new terms of service seemed to create an exemption that would allow for white people to be readily discriminated against on the platform.

“While the rule on hate protects such groups,” the old terms read, referring to various whining victim groups, “it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such acts of hate.”

Even though white people are a global minority, they are demonized by so-called minorities in the few countries in which they do have a majority. It does not take much analysis to understand why the terms of service were written in this manner and which group they were referencing.

After they were called out for their anti-white policies, Reddit changed their terms of service yet again. They made the policy on hate speech more vague, and less explicit, but still allowing for whites to be demonized on their platform.

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect those who promote attacks of hate or who try to hide their hate in bad faith claims of discrimination,” Reddit wrote in the new terms of service.

Big League Politics reported on how Reddit booted r/TheDonald off the platform earlier this week as they intensify their Orwellian crackdown against dissident voices:

The social media platform Reddit announced on Monday that they are banning r/TheDonald and many other prominent channels supposedly guilty of hate speech in a massive censorship crackdown.

In addition to r/TheDonald, Reddit will also be removing r/ChapoTrapHouse and over 2,000 other channels from their platform. Reddit is santizing their platform before this year’s U.S. general election, and they want to make sure information is as tightly controlled as possible. They are doing this supposedly at the behest of Black Lives Matter activists who complained that Reddit was not doing enough to censor the voices of their opposition.

“I have to admit that I’ve struggled with balancing my values as an American, and around free speech and free expression, with my values and the company’s values around common human decency,” Reddit CEO Steve Huffman said in a call with reporters.

Huffman claimed that users on r/TheDonald promoted content that they want to suppress, so the entire community must go.

“The community has consistently hosted and upvoted more rule-breaking content than average (Rule 1), antagonized us and other communities (Rules 2 and 8), and its mods have refused to meet our most basic expectations,” Huffman said.

The new terms of service for Reddit contains a great deal of gibberish that can be essentially used to toss all speech deemed offensive to the left-wing mob off the platform.

Reddit is engaged in the Big Tech conspiracy to suppress conservative thought in the run up to this year’s presidential election. They ought to lose their special government protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act until they consistently respect the American values of freedom of speech and open expression.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending