Remember How They Suppressed Hunter’s Laptop Story? Twitter Announces Midterms Crackdown On “Misleading” Election Claims
“…we’ll take action against misleading claims about the voting process, misleading content intended to intimidate or dissuade people from participating in the election, or misleading claims that may undermine public confidence in elections outcomes.”
Like most other popular social media sites, the Powers That Be at Twitter possess grossly inflated opinions of themselves, especially as it relates to what they feel is their supposed “duty” to keep their platform as free from so-called “disinformation” as they possibly can, most notably in election years.
“Twitter plays a critical role in empowering democratic conversations, facilitating meaningful political debate, and providing information on civic participation – not only in the US, but around the world. People deserve to trust the election conversations and content they encounter on Twitter,” the company proclaimed Thursday.
In reality, what they’re doing behind the scenes when they think no one is paying attention is acting as information gatekeepers for Democrats by way of penalizing conservative accounts for WrongThink and for daring to publish or promote unflattering stories and/or asking uncomfortable questions about candidates for higher office along with other high-profile public figures who have the potential to influence public policy.
One of the more notorious examples of this tactic in action was in their deliberate suppression of the New York Post’s blockbuster Hunter Biden laptop emails story in October 2020, just a few weeks out from the presidential election. Not only did they lock down the Post’s main Twitter account for about two weeks, but they also suppressed the story when other Twitter users attempted to share it, something Facebook admitted to doing as well.
Here we are nearly two years later, and Twitter has officially announced yet again in so many words that they are answering Joe Biden’s “special appeal” from January and are, in a nutshell, getting ready to start trying to stack the deck against Republicans ahead of the 2022 midterm elections:
Starting today, we’ll begin enforcing the Civic Integrity Policy in context of the US 2022 midterms. https://t.co/zRnUfcUBoa
— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) August 11, 2022
What does it mean? They explained in a follow-up tweet:
This means we’ll take action against misleading claims about the voting process, misleading content intended to intimidate or dissuade people from participating in the election, or misleading claims that may undermine public confidence in elections outcomes.
— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) August 11, 2022
Hmm. Oh really? Well, if that’s the case, here are a few accounts they can go ahead and get started on:
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) May 16, 2017
— Karine Jean-Pierre (@K_JeanPierre) December 18, 2016
They should monitor Joe Biden’s, too:
In 2019, when a woman claimed Trump was an “illegitimate president,” Joe Biden did not correct her.
Instead, Biden responded, “I absolutely agree!” pic.twitter.com/yly2w7x5Gd
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 28, 2022
And Hillary Clinton’s:
FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton says "you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you." pic.twitter.com/mm2KRPx6iH
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2022
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”
It’s clear that The Stacey Abrams Routine wasn’t an act. It’s their new, dangerous way of doing business.pic.twitter.com/RT6EOm5blh
— BDW (@BryanDeanWright) August 24, 2020
Hillary Clinton coming down with a strong case of Stacey Abrams Syndrome and claiming she won the 2016 election. pic.twitter.com/uTSj72IMN0
— Zach Parkinson (@AZachParkinson) October 9, 2019
Hillary Clinton: "I know Stacey [Abrams] well – she was one of my really strong surrogates in the campaign. If she'd had a fair election, she already would have won." https://t.co/Y3wmlnHCBT pic.twitter.com/pRiglx5kxn
— The Hill (@thehill) November 15, 2018
And Stacey Abrams’:
A quick round-up of just a few of the times Stacey Abrams has refused to concede and (to use her words from 2016), "proven she is a petty woman uninterested in our national stability." #GApol https://t.co/DVNPoZvPff pic.twitter.com/D31AXIeOGY
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) April 4, 2019
My man she went an entire media tour about her refusal to concede! Repeatedly saying “I won.”
What you’re doing here is alarming. pic.twitter.com/KxJ6vTxQhM
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) January 12, 2022
Folks, here is a video of Stacey Abrams in 2019 defending and explaining the reasons she did not concede:
“Because concession means to say that the process was fair…I am complicit if I say that that system is fair.”pic.twitter.com/h1mxi6sUCT
— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) December 14, 2020
And Terry McAuliffe:
WATCH: Terry McAuliffe refuses to say George W. Bush was legitimately elected president and defends his claims that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. #VAgov #VAGovRoundtable #BigLie pic.twitter.com/4wQe5SOkkF
— Glenn Youngkin (@GlennYoungkin) October 7, 2021
And every single other Democrat denying election results in this 10-minute video:
flagging for ya, @TwitterSafety
WATCH: 10 minutes of Democrats denying election results. pic.twitter.com/XBwpnU01hH
— Kyle Martinsen (@KyleMartinsen_) August 11, 2022
I could go on and on, but I think the point has been made.
If Twitter truly were interested in preventing the deliberate spread of information from undermining our elections, their “enforcement” wouldn’t be so one-sided. But it is because Twitter – just like Facebook – is run by woke leftists who do things ostensibly in the interests of the “greater good” (a.k.a. electing Democrats) takes precedence over doing the right thing, which involves letting all sides try to make their case and then letting the chips fall where they may come election time.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.