Censorship Coming

This, I have no doubt, is a real conspiracy. It began when congress gave the Internet to the United Nations. That was the setup. During the election campaign, we were hit with a barrage of fake news that read like Hillary Clinton infomercials from the mainstream media, as well as unconfirmed attacks against Donald Trump that were published with no investigation or fact-checking whatsoever. This fake news was intended solely to affect the results of the election.

True, there were also several fake news sites that were trying to do the same, many of them conservative in nature, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the greater harm occurs when the mainstream media is publishing fake news than from an unfamiliar source. As far as fake news is concerned, the greater harm was done by the mainstream media, and it was done intentionally.

As far as fake news is concerned, there were three general types:

1. The mainstream media, which was publishing fake news intended to endorse the Hillary Clinton campaign and to harm the Donald Trump campaign.
2. Sites that masquerading as regular media, using deceptive domains and formats to appear to be a regular newspaper, in order to deceive people into believing these were factual news stories.
3. Spoof sites, like The Onion, which are intended for their comedic effect, but which are sometimes done well enough that many people believe them.

After the election, a few newspapers, such as the New York Times, published mea culpas, admitting that they had been biased in their reporting of the presidential campaign, although not admitting to the fullness of their guilt. But immediately after that, they segued into a concern about the dangers of fake news sites. These were then joined by statements from Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others about setting up safeguards against these fake news sites so that future election campaigns would not be affected by them. Meanwhile, Democrat politicians and officials, such as President Obama, joined the campaign against fake news sites.

However, when you look at the lists they have published, you will see that legitimate news sites with a conservative bias are included as fake news sites, along with conservative opinion sites. You will also see an absence of the liberal equivalent. In order words, Breitbart.com is considered a fake news site, while the Huffington Post is not. The Blaze is considered a fake news site while The Hill is not.

While they are waving around their right hand, watch what their left hand is going, and you'll see that they are intending to set it up so that by the next election, the only fake news we will be able to readily access will be their own fake news sites, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc.

Twitter has already suspended the accounts of what the consider to be the alt-right, who are what used to simply be called conservatives.

We're not just talking about Facebook here. When Google sets itself up as the arbiter between that which is true and that which is false, particularly when it comes to political issues, then you will not be able to find information online that differs from the political opinions of the liberals at Google. Oh to be sure, they have been manipulating their results all along, but these manipulations are frequently caught, and they are forced to put things back because people like to be able decide for themselves whether something is true or not.

What they are trying to do here is to foment a popular call for the government to decide what's true and what's false, and to remove the false before it even comes before your eyes. That is indeed dangerous.

 

Even though I was fooled by one of his stories once, at least for a few minutes, I thought his were kind of funny. I enjoy The Onion too, but you know that the stories on The Onion are fake. When I come across one of these types of sites, I enjoy them because there is a sense of humor involved, and most everyone I follow on Facebook would let someone know if they had linked to a fake site. In fact, those who shared fake sites often were looked down upon for being too easily fooled. Given that it's so easy to share a site on Facebook, I've been caught a couple of times, and caught myself a few more times, quickly deleting something that I had shared before anyone noticed. I don't mind those.

What I found annoying were the articles that were based on fake Wikileaks stuff because there was no humor in that. They were intended either to influence someone's opinion on the basis of documents that were fake, or to diminish the credibility of the very real stuff that Wikileaks was actually making available. They were just a waste of my time, in trying to verify them on Wikileaks. But then, I found that articles based on real Wikileaks documents nearly always linked to the source document, so I assumed that any article that didn't do that was fake.

Of course, the most annoying of all was the mainstream media, who now wants to become one of the arbiters of truth, but who continue to feed us one lie after another, while refusing to even look into anything that doesn't fit the political agenda they are on. That is the larger problem.

It goes beyond bias when they report things that are wholly unverified against one person in a campaign while refusing to to look into or acknowledge anything against the other. Evidence of real corruption was revealed in the Wikileaks documents but if it were left up to the mainstream media, no one would have ever heard of any of it.

As far as Google's involvement in this, Julian Assange (Wikileaks) has a detailed but interesting article about Google's relationship with the Democrats and Democrat-controlled government, entitled, Google is Not What it Seems.