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

LOCKDOWN POLL: Should America reopen for business?

  • 🔒LOCKDOWN POLL🔒 Should America reopen for business? 

  • 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

Dave Rubin Berated on Social Media for Claiming ‘Free Markets’ Will Stop Big Tech Tyranny

Nobody is buying what Rubin’s selling anymore.

Published

on

Left-libertarian pundit Dave Rubin is getting hammered on social media by conservatives offended by his notion that the “free market” will somehow end Big Tech tyranny without government intervention.

Rubin disagreed with President Trump’s call for action to reign in Big Tech as they commit Orwellian censorship and attempt to meddle in electoral politics.

take our poll - story continues below

LOCKDOWN POLL: Should America reopen for business?

  • 🔒LOCKDOWN POLL🔒 Should America reopen for business? 

  • 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.

Rubin’s tweet caused many people to point out how his ideology is a failure and does nothing to actually preserve freedom of speech in any tangible sense.

“Man Dave…seems like years of gatekeeping and sucking up to Susan at YouTube has made the entire internet hate your guts,” wrote Twitter user @terrorsperg.

“How long until big tech controls every aspect of our life? We going to just let them destroy us in the name of “free markets?” There is a serious discussion to be had here about whether they are publisher or platform,” twitter user @MadManCris49 wrote.

“Conservatives are going to be “noble losers” until the end of time unless they actually start fighting fire with fire,” wrote Twitter user @tdschwinn.

“There is no Free Market is Social Media anymore. It’s a dictatorship that uses Repressive Tolerance to justify telling only one narrative,” wrote user @jamft in a tweet. “Twitter is no longer a platform, it has become a publisher and a gatekeeper.”

“This is not regulating them. This is taking away monetary and legal privilege they receive by claiming to be merely a “public platform.” They, if indeed they ever were, have ceased to be such and should lose that privilege,” wrote Twitter user @ChiefScribe.

“Competition doesn’t exist. Competitors can’t even get a mobile app because Apple and Google won’t allow it. Its a monopoly,” Twitter user @steph93065 wrote in another response.

Rubin is acting like his so-called competitor to Twitter, Locals.com, is free market competition that will reign in the social media giants without government interference.

However, banished journalist and Congressional candidate Laura Loomer pointed out that Rubin’s platform subscribes to all of the same rules as the tech giants and does not really promote freedom of speech.

“I find it really bizarre how Dave Rubin is going around telling people that his new social media site is anti censorship when it’s been designed to keep deplatformed people off and also utilizes the same content moderation tools as Twitter,” she wrote in a Telegram post.

“How do you have a social media site created to supposedly combat censorship and then not invite anyone who has actually been deplatformed onto the site? How can you claim to not have “behind the scenes censorship” when you let people “control who can and can’t post”?” Loomer asked.

Loomer urges patriots who oppose Big Tech censorship to join Parler, a social media entity that refuses to bow to Big Tech’s arbitrary rules and allows unpersoned individuals to speak freely on their platform.

“It is very dishonest for this new site to be advertised as a solution to censorship,” Loomer wrote of Rubin’s social media scam site. “I believe that’s what you call false advertising.”

Rubin’s half-baked weak libertarianism is not selling like it did several years ago. The homosexual former leftist “Young Turks” collaborator is showing signs that he may be controlled opposition for the globalist establishment.

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


Trending