Image 01 Image 03

Facebook and Twitter declared digital war today by throttling NY Post blockbuster Biden story

Facebook and Twitter declared digital war today by throttling NY Post blockbuster Biden story

Big Tech has been at war with conservatives and Republicans for years, today was just the surprise attack that makes it impossible to ignore anymore.

The big story of the day was a NY Post blockbuster that shows Joe Biden may have been lying all along about what and when he knew his son Hunter was selling access to his father, the then Vice President of the United States.

We covered the story and the imporant findings earlier, Emails: Top Ukrainian Exec Asked Hunter How to ‘Use Your Influence’ on Burisma’s Behalf.

Does the NY Post story completely prove the case — no, but it proves a lot more than we previously knew, and calls into serious doubt Joe Biden’s previous denials. Joe’s campaign promptly called “a lid” on the campaign, taking Joe off the trail so he couldn’t be questioned by reporters.

Then Facebook and Twitter came to Joe’s aid, attempting to call a lid on the spread of the story.

We covered that censorship earlier today as well, and it got worse as the day went on, with locked account, deleted tweets, and inability to share tweets and Facebook posts.

The NY Post Opinion Editor, Sohrab Ahmari, tweeted:

This is a Big Tech information coup. This is digital civil war.

I, an editor at The New York Post, one of the nation’s largest papers by circulation, can’t post one of our own stories that details corruption by a major-party presidential candidate, Biden.

Today was a declaration of digital war.

As with many wars, it doesn’t start when war is declared. Al-Qaeda was at war with us long before 9/11. And Big Tech has been at war with conservatives and Republicans long before Facebook and Twitter came to Joe Biden’s assistance, an assistance they never rendered against the 4-year avalanche of anti-Trump fabrication and baseless conspiracy claims that flourish to this day on those platforms.

Today was a long time coming. Just the other day, on Legal Insurrection’s 12th Anniversary, I reprinted my 2017 concern about Big Tech:

Imagine living in a repressive country in which the government blocked access to and suppressed internet content. You don’t need to move. It’s coming here but from private industry. This is, in many ways, more dangerous than government suppression of free speech because at least in the U.S. the government is subject to the First Amendment, and can be voted out of office.

The digital war was started against us long ago. After today, there’s no denying it. The question, which is not as simple as government regulation, is how to escape the death grip of social media oligopolies.

[Featured Image: Sohrab Ahmari Twitter]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


If this is allowed, then what can be forbidden?

    rabid wombat in reply to Dantzig93101. | October 14, 2020 at 10:18 pm

    When you strike at the king, you better kill him….failing that, is it worth sacrificing the Section 230 protection if you fail?

      Yes- I really hope there are some repercussions coming to big tech in the next 4 years.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Andy. | October 14, 2020 at 10:59 pm


        From Ace of Spades – lots more reading there…..

        And New York Post editor Sohrab Amari has had his account suspended.

        Earlier, friends reported they were being forced by Twitter to unfollow him — again, illegal interference in competition in another field, namely, the fields of news media and information.

        Update: A commenter tells me that this is not Sohrab Amari’s actual account, but a parody one.

        That doesn’t cancel my friends’ reports that they were being forced to unfollow Amari’s actual account.

        And yes, the NYPost’s main account is now locked.

        They’ve shut down an opposition newspaper — which is the first step for any fascist junta.


        Thinking about the sad-sack fusionist right liberals who are my adversaries and their dreams of neutrality. HA HA HA HA.

        There is no neutrality in a civil war.

        We have told them for years that this was coming — turnkey fascism.

        Turnkey fascism which the GOP enabled every single year by reassuring the Tech Monopolists that they could do whatever they liked, and the corporate-donor-servicing organization called “The GOP” would always protect them.

        Even if they blatantly discriminated against the GOP’s supposed clients, conservatives and Republicans. (Note: the GOP’s real clients are corporations and billionaires who embrace a socially-liberal, corporate-supremacist libertarian position.)

        Even if they blatantly attack the GOP itself.

        Now the election, and the tech monopolies are going all-in — just as we warned these corrupt fuckers in Conservative, Inc. — and are emboldened to go Full Orwell because they know this is, in fact, the Last Election we’ll ever have.

        They’ll never face the threat of legal action again, and they know it.

        They just have to win this election for their Democrat coconspirators, and then they will have a permanent monopoly status locked-in and blessed by Democrat Party-owned United States of America……”

          An angry, slutty, ruthless and talentless leftist hack will become president – and soon – if the horribly corrupt and addled Biden is elected.

          If Harris becomes president, the election will shadow the election of 1860. If Trump wins, Barr will be shit-canned, and criminal prosecutions of horrid lawbreakers will finally begin. The democrat brownshirts will be unleashed, but better they be unleashed while we control the levers of power, than if they are agents of Kamala Harris.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | October 15, 2020 at 3:12 pm

          Sen. Cruz Slams Twitter CEO: ‘Right Now, Jack Dorsey Is Just Behaving as Joe Biden’s Press Secretary’…

          Trump: Twitter And Facebook Are ‘Out of Control,’ Basically The Third Arm of The DNC…

          Weasel Zippers

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | October 15, 2020 at 3:15 pm


          Look At Who Twitter Suggests I Follow — 19 Days Before a Very Consequential Presidential Election
          —Ace of Spades

          I signed up for Twitter — don’t worry, it’s just to be able to read stuff more easily.

          This is who they recommended I follow — 19 days before an important presidential election.

          Not a single conservative politician, not even the very popular Donald J. Trump, although, of course, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton are all recommended.

          And Alexandria Donkey-Chompers. And John Kerry. And Michael Bloomberg.

          Not a single conservative pundit — unless you count “David Frum,” a liberal who is now all but a declared Democrat (and who only doesn’t declare as Democrat to preserve his market value as a “reasonable conservative”).

          I would include the media accounts it suggested I follow, but it might give away my location. Trust me, they’re all leftwing.

          And there are conservative media in the area. But Twitter decided not to recommend I follow those.

      They will become a state monopoly regardless of which side wins. I think they’re seeing this as simply the best chance to see if they can get *all* of the chips while they are at it, but they win either way.

      MattMusson in reply to rabid wombat. | October 15, 2020 at 6:45 am

      They have crossed the Rubicon. And, there is no going back.

      Justice Thomas recently wrote that Section 230 could stand a major re-visit by the Supreme Court. They have some cases on their way to doing so, but he said that they aren’t the right ones for addressing the issues that he worries about.

      I agree, but this kinda sounds like ambulance chasing…an invitation for a properly constructed suit.

    texasron in reply to Dantzig93101. | October 15, 2020 at 3:31 pm

    Protect the Constitution, vote Republican.

i shared the legal insurrection post about the story. i got a message that I can’t post for violating TOS, but have been posting all over the place Now news feed is not working with error message on desktop

I really think this could be a harbinger of a Trump wave. Clearly the Dems are terrified, but this reaction by Twitter and Facebook might be even more harmful to them than the E-mail itself.

    Dantzig93101 in reply to tabulae. | October 14, 2020 at 10:07 pm

    Assuming that anyone who isn’t already supporting Trump finds out about it. I don’t think it will make CNN or The New York Times.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to tabulae. | October 14, 2020 at 10:12 pm

    This has not been clearly stated, at least as far as I know, but the fight we are in is a struggle against a grasping globalist oligarchy that does not hold any allegiance to the United States of America, or its people. Their allegiance is only to themselves. The rest of us exist to serve their needs, dreams, and desires. The first line of defense is to VOTE, then hold the insincere pretenders you put into office to account. Make sure they understand they are OUR servants, and not vice versa. The window is closing. In time, if you do not decisively act in the political process, many of you will need to make a choice to either live as a serf or a slave, or die as a free man.

What is the value of this in-kind contribution to the Biden campaign?

    It isn’t a contribution unless they did it at the Biden campaign’s request. And it’s ridiculous to suppose they did. Not only are they smart enough not to ask the Biden campaign what it would like them to do, they also don’t need to be told. They know that this story hurts Biden and therefore blocking it helps him, so they blocked it. The first amendment protects their right to do so. And Section 230 says they can do it without thereby becoming responsible for user-supplied content that they didn’t censor, whether because they didn’t want to or because they never saw it.

    What’s more, amending Section 230 probably would not change that, since it was probably not legally necessary in the first place. Remember that it was passed because of an awful court decision against Prodigy, saying that the moment it deleted any user content it became responsible for everything it didn’t delete, by analogy with newspapers, which are responsible for letters to the editor and guest columns that they choose to publish. But that decision would probably have been overturned on appeal, based on the analogy with bookstores; if a bookstore chooses not to carry Mein Kampf or Das Kapital, that doesn’t make it responsible for the content of all the books it does carry. The problem was that the industry couldn’t survive the uncertainty, so Congress quickly passed a legislative fix. If that were to be repealed or amended we’d be back where we were, and the courts would probably find that there’s no responsibility.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 12:24 am

      The difference is that the government does not claim to own the book store, but does claim ownership of the electronic spectrum over which these companies operate, much like the government claims ownership of public roads and highways. The electronic spectrum is a national commons subject to use regulation by its owner, the US government. Private companies are allowed use of that spectrum under certain conditions in the same way drivers are also allowed to use public roads and highways, also under certain conditions. The intent of Section 230 was that the companies under the rule would act much as AT&T, that is, allow users use of this spectrum without content controls. The phone companies do not monitor the use of the spectrum, neither what you say or what you do over their equipment. In fact, it is a privacy violation to monitor you. By interfering with this unfettered utilization of the government owned commons by controlling content, these companies are, in my opinion, in violation of their 203 exemption. In any event, the government has long claimed and exercised its rights over the electromagnetic spectrum and can regulate its use. Exhibit 1 is Section 203.

        but does claim ownership of the electronic spectrum over which these companies operate

        They don’t operate over an electronic spectrum. The net is not a wavelength, and the government does not own it. Nor is it a limited resource, so the government can’t regulate it, any more than it can regulate cable.

        in the same way drivers are also allowed to use public roads and highways, also under certain conditions.

        Those conditions must be viewpoint neutral. Which means it can’t impose viewpoint neutrality on the users. Or do you imagine the government could ban partisan campaign vehicles from the highways?

        The intent of Section 230 was that the companies under the rule would act much as AT&T, that is, allow users use of this spectrum without content controls

        No, it was not. You are simply making up something that never happened. Maybe you’re young enough not to have been around at the time. Many/most of us were, and remember it well. There was never any such intention. And again, there is no “spectrum” involved.

        Do you think Prof J is not allowed to impose content controls on the comments in this section?! Do you think he has to allow nazis and communists to post comments if he doesn’t want to?! Or that that was ever Congress’s intent?! Because section 230 covers this forum in exactly the same way that it does Facebook and Twitter.

        The phone companies do not monitor the use of the spectrum […]

        The phone companies have nothing to do with this. They are public utilities. Interactive computer services are to and were never intended to be.

        In any event, the government has long claimed and exercised its rights over the electromagnetic spectrum and can regulate its use. Exhibit 1 is Section 203.

        You’re just displaying your ignorance. Section 220 has no connection to any elecromagnetic spectrum, or to any government-owned or common resource. It is about one thing only: liability for user-provided content. It establishes that interactive computer services, like bookstores, are not liable for hosting content written by others, even if they curate or moderate that content.

          daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 11:04 am

          I’ve long since given up trying to explain s.230 and how the Internet works to soi-disant conservatives. We’re in the “sit back and watch it all burn” stage now. A bunch of not-very-smart people forgot that There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch and now they’re mad that their free shit is being taken away, and to hell with any unintended consequences of using Big Daddy Government to make the mean corporations do what they want.

      Aarradin in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 12:42 am

      “its ridiculous to suppose they did”

      Really? There’s an abundance of evidence that journalists across multiple platforms as well as Twitter and Facebook regularly did such things for many years at the behest of Hillary and/or the DNC, why would it be “ridiculous” to allege they did it at the behest of Biden’s campaign?

      Particularly so in the case of Facebook censoring this, given that the decision was made by their communication’s director who was previously employed by the Democrat Party.

      They may have done this on their own, to help Biden’s campaign, or they may have done it at his campaign’s request. Either is entirely possible, matter of speculation at this point which happened, but either possibility is entirely plausible.

        Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | October 15, 2020 at 1:10 am

        Yes, it is ridiculous to suppose they asked the Biden campaign whether it wanted them to do this. First of all, they would never do that because they know it would be illegal. Second, they would never do that because they don’t need to be told. And no, there is no evidence that either Facebook or Twitter has ever done anything at the behest of the Clinton campaign or of the DNC. They make no secret of their sympathies, but they act as they see fit, and as they think will help the cause. They don’t care whether the Biden campaign agrees with them or wants them to do it.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 3:41 am

          When did “illegal” stop the Democrats from doing anything they though they could conceal or otherwise get away with?

          Aarradin in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 5:26 am

          Twitter’s Director of Public Policy is currently employed by Joe Biden, he’s on his transition team.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 9:41 am

          They’re obviously not going to do something blatantly illegal when they have no reason to and get no benefit from it. They’re not stupid. They want Biden to win, and they don’t need his campaign’s advice on what to do to ensure that. They know what to do, so they just do it. How is this not completely obvious to you? The only reason to suppose there might have been a request from the campaign is wishful thinking.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 9:46 am

          Twitter’s Director of Public Policy is currently employed by Joe Biden, he’s on his transition team.

          Um, no. Carlos Monje is Twitter’s former Director of Public Policy. He left Twitter to work for Biden. Therefore he had no part in this decision.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 12:45 am


      The actions may not have been coordinated with the Biden campaign but lack of coordination doesn’t preclude the possibility that something is a contribution.

      I do think you are ultimately correct that the actions are not likely to result in a guilty verdict for campaign finance violations.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | October 15, 2020 at 1:04 am

        The lack of coordination absolutely precludes the possibility that it is a donation. By definition a donation must be given to someone. That’s what the word means.

        What a lot of people seem not to understand is that, unlike antifa or white supremacy, the Biden campaign is not an idea, it is an actual legal entity. And only gifts to that specific entity are regulated. Helping Biden get elected is not a gift to the Biden campaign, and isn’t regulated. The first amendment doesn’t allow it to be regulated.

          randian in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 3:33 am

          Whether you obtain value from something has nothing to do with whether or not you had actual possession of it. What matters is the economic substance of the transaction. You’re essentially arguing that economic substance doesn’t matter. That’s absurd. Try arguing to a court that paying off somebody’s mortgage isn’t a gift, and that you didn’t give them anything, on the basis that they never had possession of the cash used to pay it.

          Registered PACs can make advertisements for political parties without running afoul of contribution rules. Facebook is not a registered PAC, therefore anything it does that advertises for, or suppresses advertising against, a candidate must be a contribution to the party or the candidate. If it is not, Federal contribution limits are meaningless. Soros launders his money though PACs. It’s odious but legal. Facebook isn’t even trying to obey the required forms.

          randian: Facebook is not a registered PAC, therefore anything it does that advertises for, or suppresses advertising against, a candidate must be a contribution to the party or the candidate.

          So you’re saying Legal Insurrection, which supports Trump and attacks Biden, is making an in-kind campaign contribution? Or a newspaper that publishes an endorsement? Or a pro-Republican blog that deletes comments from “libtards”? Or randian, if randian states an opinion on the candidates?

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 9:43 am


          No. Let’s say I set up an organization called ‘ride to vote’. This organization charters buses to take voters to and from polling places.

          I don’t communicate in any way with any political party or campaign. All I do is announce the service and the location for pick up. So far I am good.

          Now let’s say before I allow folks on the bus I make them show me or demonstrate some kind of party affiliation through a series of basic policy questions, and I only allow the members of one political party to board the bus. At this point I am acting illegally if I haven’t disclosed the costs as a political contribution.

          So as we.can see.from this example, coordination isn’t required to make a violation. Is this a.perfect example for the actions of FB and Twitter, no. That’s why I agree with you that their current actions, while unsavory are unlikely to result in a successful prosecution.

          I do think that FB and.Twitter will eventually face a.hugely disproportionate response that will make jack and zuck wish they hadn’t allowed this to proceed.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 10:13 am

          randian, I don’t know where you got such nonsense. Anyone is free to do anything they like to persuade others to vote as they wish. That’s what the first amendment is all about. The government cannot regulate this. Only donations to a candidate’s official campaign are regulated. And doing something that helps elect the candidate, without the campaign having asked for it, is not a donation. Nothing was given.

          Paying someone’s debts is a gift — you are paying the person’s creditors on his behalf. This is money that he owes, so in paying it you are giving it to him. Paying off a campaign’s bills with a supplier would be a donation for the same reason. You are literally giving it something, even if the check is made out to the creditor. So is spending money at the campaign’s request. There can be no comparison to a case where you are literally not giving the campaign anything, directly or indirectly, you’re just doing what you want, which happens to make the campaign happy.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 1:26 pm


          In your response to randian you state that in effect anyone can do whatever they want without regulation regarding campaign spending.

          That is absolutely false.

          You are describing ‘independent expenditures’. Yes anyone can make independent expenditures in the manner they choose.
          Two very important points
          1. They are only independent if not coordinated with a campaign
          2. The expenditure MUST be reported as an independent campaign expenditure.

          While it is perfectly legal to spend, it is illegal to fail to disclose the spending.

          IMO, a reasonable case could be made that the recent actions of Twitter and FB are in fact independent campaign expenditure that have.not been reported/disclosed as such. I am happy for you or anyone else to disagree with that point.

          What is undeniable is that all expenditures on behalf of a.campaign whether organic to the campaign, from an affiliate or an uncoordinated independent expenditure are in fact regulated and must be reported.

      Look at all the assumptions you make in predicting a specific outcome of inevitable defeat. It’s that kind of defeatist thinking that facilitated the destruction of the constitution. That is the very phony, lazy intellectualism embraced by so-called libertarians who believe that capitalism is what happens when you leave people alone.

      Start with the original intent of the constitution and why it is written as a declaration of inalienable rights and work from there. FIND THE RIGHT WORDS TO MAKE THE CONSTITUTION WORK!!! Do you believe in the constitution or don’t you? Fight for it!

      MattMusson in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 6:48 am

      No. The issue is whether Twitter would regularly charge a commercial customer for this same services that the provide the Democrats for free? And if they have had ANY coordination with the Democrats at any level.

        Milhouse in reply to MattMusson. | October 15, 2020 at 10:25 am

        You are wrong. That is not the law. Unless the official Biden campaign specifically asked them to do this, they are not providing it with a service, and therefore there is no donation.

        Just ask yourself: Suppose they decided to present the campaign with a bill, would the campaign have to pay it? Obviously not. The campaign would rightly say we never asked you to do this, and we didn’t agree to pay, so we’re not liable.

        You keep forgetting that the first amendment absolutely protects Twitter’s right to campaign for Biden, and forbids Congress from regulating or limiting that at all. The only loophole the Supreme Court has allowed is that Congress can regulate actual donations to a candidate or his official campaign, on the grounds that it could lead to bribery, i.e. a mutual and conscious agreement with the candidate that “You do this for me and if elected I’ll do that for you”. Without a request from the candidate or campaign for Twitter to censor this story, there can be no such agreement, and therefore there’s no ground on which Congress can regulate it.

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 8:04 pm

      “”It isn’t a contribution unless they did it at the Biden campaign’s request.””

      Per her segment on Dobbs tonight, Sidney Powell apparently disagrees.

LibraryGryffon | October 14, 2020 at 10:18 pm

I just posted this article to FB and admittedly it’s only been a couple of minutes, but it’s still up.

I posted a link to the Spectator’s coverage of this 7h ago and they haven’t blocked it yet either. I wonder if it’s getting to enough outlets that they can’t block all of them without being insanely obvious.

Either that or my page doesn’t reach enough people for them to be worried about it. 🙂

    They may be running out of mole whacks. As near as I can tell, it’s been more of less hand-banning rather than an automated algorithm.

    I’m curious how much of Facebook’s banning is still reactive – in response to a complaint, rather than proactive – algorithms searching for specific links.

Streisand effect? I certainly hope so.

To put it in terms we can all relate to:

Four years of anti-Trump conspiracy stories = the guys swinging from streetlights outside the Staples Center in L.A. who let go and safely fall into the arms of the throngs of people celebrating after the Lakers’ victory …

… while the NY Post story = Orthodox Jews trying to engage in religious celebrations immediately shut down by de Blasio and Cuomo.

    Milhouse in reply to LukeHandCool. | October 14, 2020 at 11:03 pm

    By the way I still don’t think that’s antisemitism. I think it’s simply punishing a community that votes Republican.

      LukeHandCool in reply to Milhouse. | October 14, 2020 at 11:44 pm

      You may be right. That has occurred to me as well.

      But it’s prejudice either way.

      P.S. I was trying to hit reply and accidentally hit the thumbs down. The system won’t let me correct that. I always appreciate and enjoy reading your thoughts, even when I disagree.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 12:10 am

      I think it is antisemitism. How far along the walk into the barbed wire compound will you need to go to recognize it?

        They’re not hitting other Jews. They’re not even hitting the modern Orthodox communities. There may be an element of antisemitism involved, perhaps unconscious, but it’s not the driving element. Yes, we’re more visibly Jewish, but the other thing that makes us different is that we vote Republican.

Maybe it’s all the NY Post’s fault.

If their byline had been Seth Abramson, there would be no problem.

Colonel Travis | October 15, 2020 at 12:00 am

Newspaper publishes a story, two biggest social media companies on earth censor it, shut down accounts of those who link to it, including the White House press secretary. This is so bad. It’s clearly not the only example of big tech tyranny, it is one of the most egregious.

The left is dangerous. What will be done about it? How many people are really upset about this kind of behavior? I guess we’ll find out in three weeks.

This move by Twitter and FB strikes me as very counterproductive.

In the immediate term they sought to diminish coverage. Clearly the story is being covered.

In the long term this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The ‘standards’ being trotted out about unsourced stories or information being used which is ‘hacked’ are routinely ignored by these entities.

They can play semantics trying to say ‘hacked’ isn’t the same as ‘leaked’ but that is a very unserious position to take. The bottom line is these companies choose to enforce or not enforce their rules or even create new rules as it suits their political preferences.

These companies clearly have decided to put their thumb on the scale. They may, in the short run get by with it. Based upon what I have seen and read the response is universal condemnation.

In the longer run, should Trump win and the r carry the HoR and retain the Senate there are likely to be legislative consequences. IMO the pendulum is likely to be swung too far in the other direction but these companies have only themselves to blame for that possibility.

Personally I would think they would be smart enough to offer three choices; red, blue or both. Let individuals decide whether they want to see ‘triggering’ posts or not. The companies could have done that and still scraped everyone’s data to sell. As it is they will be lucky to get the same deal as ATT being broken into the baby bells.

    Aarradin in reply to CommoChief. | October 15, 2020 at 12:46 am

    Plus, they have no issue at all allowing anti-Trump stories based on “hacked” or “leaked” information to flood their platforms.

    So, its not just a huge stretch of their policy (there is not even an allegation that Hunter’s computer was ever “hacked”), it is completely arbitrary and one-sided in how they are applying it.

Twitter claiming it violates their policy on posting information from a “hacked” device, even though there is not even an allegation that Hunter’s computer was hacked.

Seems an extremely broad redefinition of that policy, since they really have no excuse for their censorship.

Same company was happy to allow anyone to post links to the NY Times story on Trump’s tax returns which they had illegally obtained, in clear violation of federal law.

They haven’t ‘declared war’.

We’ve been AT WAR with them for years. It’s just the RINOs went completely Churchill and stuck their head in the sand and claimed we had Peace In Our Time.

They’ve been AT WAR with us for years, and this is just their final frontal assault to end it.

People have been upset by spam calls on their cell phones and clamoring for cell companies to block them. They have now started to do so.

After today, do you want them to do that?

NRA calls for fundraising…Nope, blocked.

Pro-life PAC calling to enlist people for an initiative…Blocked.

Any org listed by SPLC tries calling…Blocked.

GOP calls for fundraising. Well, what do you know, one call out of ten somehow doesn’t connect.

You won’t know what you are missing. Literally.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ann in L.A.. | October 15, 2020 at 8:26 am

    If anything, since the blocking has started, my spam calls have easily tripled, and I know the numbers are spoofed.

    BEdwards in reply to Ann in L.A.. | October 15, 2020 at 8:51 am

    Google Mail already sends ALL emails from conservative websites and Donald Trump straight to our junk folder. Every other bit of spam from every other company goes straight to our inbox.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to BEdwards. | October 15, 2020 at 10:17 am

      Don’t use Gmail for anything important. We really need antitrust action against Google, Facebook and Twitter.

Did Facebook or Twitter “throttle “ or block the unsourced story of President Trump supposedly calling soldiers “losers “ etc?

Terence G. Gain | October 15, 2020 at 6:11 am

President Trump was impeached for daring to request that Hunter Biden’s obvious influence peddling peddling should be investigated. We now have evidence confirming what some of us logically inferred at the time, namely that Joe Biden cooperated with his son’s influence peddling. After all he did fire the prosecutor investigating the company which was paying off his son. What we learned yesterday is that the FBI buried evidence provided to it concerning the influence peddling and failed to advise President Trump even though this evidence was relevant and would have been of assistance to him in his impeachment trial. This is a bombshell.

Joe Biden claims that he wishes to restore decency to the White House even as he spreads the Charlottesville Lie as we spread grass seed. Joe Biden cannot restore what he does not possess. He is corrupt. By reason of this influence peddling and Joe Biden‘s use of his office to make his family rich, I stated this FACT at the National Post’s Full Comment blog during the impeachment of President Trump and my comment was blocked by the corrupt moderator’s of that site.

In addition to the corruption of Joe Biden and the corruption of the MSM and the News Dissemination Monopolies what also needs to be investigated is the corruption of the FBI. Who at the FBI buried the information contained in the computer which was delivered to them in December 2019? Does the corruption go all the way to the top? Is Christopher Wray no better than James Comey? Christopher Wray should step aside as this matter is investigated or he should be forced to take a leave of absence.

The case for President Trump’s reelection just became more evident. America will not survive if elects a president who is not just suffering from dementia but is also corrupt. The massive malfeasance of the opinion makers and the law enforcers will be swept under the rug.

    Terence G. Gain in reply to Terence G. Gain. | October 15, 2020 at 6:17 am

    I see that the dictation system confused the plural with the possessive and displayed moderators as moderator’s. Checking one’s work before posting is always a challenge.

Two problems:

The content being censored is true and unchallenged.

Streisand Effect. Censorship calls attention to the content and makes it forbidden fruit.

One more problem. The republicans are hardly going to lead with their best stuff.

And as I look at the citizenry in the long voting line outside Filthadelphia’s City Hall, dropping their ballots in the locked box, I can only hypothesize that not a fucking one of them knows about this issue, or, if it so happens they do, they couldn’t give a shit less anyway. Just my cynical two cents.

    Terence G. Gain in reply to Marcus. | October 15, 2020 at 10:42 am

    Do you think PA voters are unaware of the Democrats position on fracking? Do you think they don’t care? Do you think they don’t know what impact the election of a Harris/Biden administration will have on PA?

I can follow the argument that an editorial policy is not a gift or a political contribution, but falsely claiming the information was the result of a hack is another thing.

Falsely claiming the information s untrue is another thing.

Falsely claiming the policy is unbiased is another thing.

What needs to happen is the policy needs to backfire.

No legal action required.

    Milhouse in reply to Petrushka. | October 15, 2020 at 10:32 am

    Exactly. But for it to backfire, (1) people need to be aware of it, and (2) they need to care. We know and care, but we were all going to vote for Trump anyway. People who would otherwise vote for Biden need to know and care.

If Republicans running for Congress really wanted to make a statement in their campaign, they should promise to rescind Trump’s impeachment.

The New York Post exposes are even HOTTER than they might have been originally, thanks to the big tech giants trying to hide them.

Proving, the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

Back in the day after Watergate all the “cub reporters” wanted toget “the story” about political wrongdoing. Generally they kept a sharp eye on Republicans. Now here is a possible story about political malfeasance the makes Watergate look like a kid stealing his little sisters milk money and they are censoring people wanting to discuss it. Dems are going to make places like Russia and China seem like bastions of democracy.

    Milhouse in reply to Hawk. | October 15, 2020 at 10:35 am

    Things weren’t any better back then. The news industry assiduously reported the Nixon campaign’s dirty tricks, but kept shtum about those of the Kennedy and Johnson campaigns that prompted the Nixon people to do the same.

The more the monster writhes, the more it exhausts itself.

These outlets are helping ensure Trump’s reelection.

FACEBOOK has been spending lavishly in media advertising to propagandize the lie that it is acting honestly in controlling access. The larger truth is that the Internet that was created by taxpayer dollars has been captured by a bunch of crooks who have used it to make themselves billionaires.

BierceAmbrose | October 15, 2020 at 7:45 pm

Good thing the underlying plumbing is still kinda “neutral”, so we can route around them.

Good thing they didn’t get “net neutrality”, making levers to throttle (which also means able to filter) under the hood, based in who’s talking.

“Net neutrality”, explicitly to make underlying layers of the interweb not neutral. (Yes, I know the claimed goals, and means of “Net Neutrality.” In practice, it would be worse than prosecutorial discretion. The same SJ Cartmans pulling this current crap wjth “content” would have an additiinal pile of monitors, throttles, n legal protocols, all way broader n more obscure, to not abuse.)

We simply don’t understand the unintended consequences of allowing our data to be used. Liberal biased Facebook, Google, Reddit, LinkedIn and Twitter are nefarious surveillance companies data mining its customers and illegally selling it to the highest bidder. Facebook is free because you, the user, are the product they sell. Why would you be a member of them or Twitter, YouTube, etc. Once you lose your privacy and identity, it is almost impossible to get it back. Be safe, be smart, and drop these from your life while you still have it. And they are ending access to users who do not fit their liberal agenda. They should be fined for their discriminating behavior. And none of these companies should be allowed to stifle free speech. I would only support eliminating users who are advertising, or promoting violence, or illegal activities. Social media is a cesspool where political correctness and righteous indignation thrives.

I understand why POTUS uses Twitter to get his messages out to circumvent the FAKE NEWS (left wing) media. I personally do not use Facebook or Twitter simply because both are political organisations working feverishly to promote their Trump Derangement Syndrome and are run by billionaires Dorsey and Zuckerberg who are devout Left Wingers milking the American public of every cent they can! It’s all about the money folks.