The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Daily Mail: Former UK Liberal Democrat Supremo Nick Clegg Censored Biden Scoop at Facebook
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Nick Clegg was leader of the UK third party centre-left Liberal Democrats from 2005-2015 and deputy Prime Minister to David Cameron from 2010-2015. He is currently cashing in big time as head censor for protecting his ideological counterpart Joe Biden at Facebook. From the Daily Mail:

Nick Clegg ‘was involved in Facebook’s decision to hush-up story about Joe Biden’s son’ that led to social media giant being branded the Democrat’s ‘PR team’ by Republicans
Nick Clegg is vice-president of global affairs and communications at Facebook
Facebook was accused of ‘acting as Joe Biden’s PR team’ by top Republicans
Decision to ‘reduce the distribution’ came before the US election on November 3
For moderation issues that hold political significance Sir Nick will look into it
It is not known who had the final say in the distribution of the Joe Biden story
By JEMMA CARR FOR MAILONLINE and JENNIFER SMITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 21:30 EDT, 15 October 2020 | UPDATED: 02:51 EDT, 16 October 2020

Former British Deputy Prime Minister Sir Nick Clegg was involved in Facebook’s decision to ‘reduce the distribution’ of a New York Post Joe Biden story, reports suggest.

The social media firm was accused of ‘acting as Joe Biden’s PR team’ by top Republicans for hushing up the story just days before the US election on November 3.

Sir Nick, who left the UK government in 2015, is now the vice-president of global affairs and communications at the social media giant.

The Post story alleges that Biden met with a Ukrainian businessman in 2015 – when the businessman was paying his son Hunter $50,000-a-month.

Months later, Biden – then the US Vice President – pressured Ukrainian officials into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the businessman, it claims.

Facebook announced on Wednesday that it had started ‘reducing distribution’ of the New York Post’s story until their army of third-party ‘fact checkers’ had vetted it.

Most of Facebook’s decisions are made by automatic software – or by moderation staff, The Daily Telegraph reports.

But, for sensitive moderation issues that hold cultural or political significance, Facebook’s vice-president of content policy, vice-president of global public policy and then Sir Nick look into the case as it passes up a chain.

 
Hide 118 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. AndrewR says:

    I’m no expert on tech law but I would imagine that a competent president could make life very unpleasant for these tech corporations, even without the cooperation of Congress (and I think almost all Republican congressmen and many Democrats would at least privately admit that Facebook/Twitter/Google (and others) are evil and harm “our democracy” in a way that overwhelmingly favors Democrats and RINOs

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Muggles
    , @Travis
  2. Reminds me of the headline: “Opposition Leader criticises government”.

    At this late stage of the devolution of everything White and Western I don’t know how you stay relevant.

    Speaking of which, late to the wake but hats off to Eddie, what a champion bloke who taught me how to not take shit from faggots, has-beems and woke-jokes.

    I can understand why Anglin derides him but Eddie was from a time when men were men

  3. Reminds me of the headline: “Opposition Leader criticises government”.

    At this late stage of the devolution of everything White and Western I don’t know how you stay relevant.

    Speaking of which, late to the wake but hats off to Eddie, what a champion bloke who taught me how to not take shit from faggots, has-beens and woke-jokes.

    I can understand why Anglin derides him but Eddie was from a time when men were men

  4. slumber_j says:

    Maybe I’m wrong, but this strikes me as a phenomenon that only cropped up in my adulthood–this revolving door between politics and the dissemination of information, mostly through journalism. It started with the children of prominent politicians (Eleanor Mondale, Chris Cuomo et al.), then we got the astonishing if not much remarked-upon second career of George Stephanopoulos and other of his ilk, and now this.

    It would be far better for the public if these people would just slink off and collect after-the-fact bribes for themselves or their families in the traditional manner.

  5. Richard S says:

    That arsehole always sounded like he had a frog in his throat. An aristocrat like the rest of them, he calculated correctly that joining the Liberals gave him the best shot at power.

    An opportunist, he was one of the most hated men in Britain around 2010, after betraying his Leftish party policies for the chance to go on junkets and be driven in a ministerial Jaguar (and, naturally, the opportunity to make real money after politics, like Blair).

    His wife was quite the spicy Spaniard senora, I seem to recall.

    He’s basically a weathervane that’s always pointing in the most personally profitable direction. Actually the sort of politician I prefer. Better a corrupt liar than an incorruptible fanatic.

    • Replies: @hhsiii
  6. This ought to remind the blackpillers that foreign policy will be even worse under Biden.

  7. @Pat Hannagan

    Tip from a lifelong internet voyeur: never join a forum, always join a club.

    People who enjoy your music will enjoy you.

    So the media is burying yet another story against team A, have we learned nothing from Journolist? Are we doomed to forever repeat yesterday? No! We can forge a new future built on the learned experience of the past.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
  8. slumber, I could not agree more.chris cuomo is a shamless apologist for his brother andrew. His interviews of his brother, and there has been a number of them, are cringe worthy. Lower case for the cuomos as a token of disrespect.

  9. Steve Sailer says:

    Nick Clegg was leader of the UK third party centre-left Liberal Democrats from 2005-2017 and deputy Prime Minister to David Cameron from 2010-2015. He is currently cashing in big time as head censor for protecting his ideological counterpart Joe Biden at Facebook.

    I say:

    “Ideological counterpart” is rhetorically soft stepping the sonofabitch out of what Biden and Clegg actually are: Biden and Clegg are nasty treasonous politician whores for vile and treasonous globalizer billionaire plutocrat oligarchs and other globalizer bastards.

    I had this Nick Clegg guy pegged as a vicious pretty boy politician whore for the globalizer plutocrat oligarchs a long time ago. To his credit, Clegg did debate Nigel Farage on the EU 5 years ago, and I see the English still haven’t left the evil prison house of nations called the EU.

    Tweets from 2014 and 2015:

  10. Streisand Effect, anyone?

  11. @Pat Hannagan

    The enigma of American, and so Western, politics is summed up:

    Affirmative Action was a regular topic of our conversations, and I would occasionally note how odd America was in that regard. No other example came to mind in which an ethnic group had established a legalized system of racial discrimination against its own members, while similar sorts of systems aimed at excluding or disadvantaging rival ethnic groups were all too common in world history.

    Why is it that today we are actively hunted down for extermination by all of our own institutions?

    • Replies: @Hugo Silva
  12. “Facebook’s decision to hush-up story about Joe Biden’s son”
    “paying his son Hunter $50,000-a-month”

    There is no justification for these hyphens, at least in American English. Does the Daily Mail‘s British English differ, or is this just simple illiteracy?

    • Replies: @Lurker
  13. “Distribution”. “Reduce the Distribution.” Hmmmm, click, click [in the mind of a lawyer]

    I know that Nick Clegg and the censors at Twitter wanted to use a nice euphemism for “censor” or “stifle”. I would say the use of “distribution” was a bad choice. Does it not sound like the actions of a Publisher rather than a Platform? When you have a neutral platform, you “host” stuff, you “enable functionality”, things like that. “Distributing” (or not) is what a publisher does.

    Section 230 of the Communications Act covers this stuff, and since Twitter is going to admit that is is a publisher in this manner, they are no longer immune to libel suits and consumer protection action. Calling the lawyers, STAT! Jack D, what say you?

    The thing is, there has been this censorship by these Big-Computer-Tech publishers for a few years now. President Trump has only blustered and bullshitted about it before as it hasn’t affected him personally. NOW, under 3 weeks before the election, it’s personal. What can you do about this in that time?

    Well, at least this censorship story got out, and has become another story just as big as the NY Post story itself.

    .

    Finally, for Clyde or anyone who thinks I shouldn’t criticize the President right now, hey, I point out the Good, the Bad (and “the Ugly” is coming today). I got a sign in the yard that I forgot to take in last night, but it’s still there. I’ve gotten 4 or 5 compliments on the signs (I switch 2 different ones out) and 2 after which I ended up talking politics with people I COMPLETELY agreed with for 45 minutes, then 20 minutes. I will be at the polls on November 3rd.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    , @Jack D
    , @Hypnotoad666
  14. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: “Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Signs Overall Deal With Warner Bros. Television Group.” What the heck does someone who plans to set Federal buildings on fire know about television production? Nothing. This is what Tom Wolfe would have called slitting your own throat with liberal chic. I’ll bet she doesn’t even bother to show up when she realizes it means she actually has to work.

    https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/black-lives-matter-founder-patrisse-cullors-warner-bros-television-group-overall-deal-1234806076/

    But hey, I bet Obama’s sobbing because she just got his dream job.

  15. The Brits also played a lead role in pushing Cody Shearer’s fictional Trump dossier. They like to meddle in our elections. They are our original enemy. Perhaps we would be better off if we still considered them as such.

    For the record I recognize my ancestral homeland has been under a hostile occupation for some time, and have no bearing on the hostile actions of its current and ex spooks and pols.

  16. @Pat Hannagan

    Probs why afficionados of what’s right, proper and cool are against Eddie on the cusp of his death, and why both left and right can unite against his legacy is because he stood for a time beyond their grovelling war to see who gets to bend knee to their king first.

    Feel like throwing in the towel don’t be a fool
    They’re out to knock you out, put you down
    For the count
    Watch the left, watch the right, below
    The belt
    They’ll run you round and round it’s plain to see
    It’s never gonna stop they’ll run ya till you drop
    There ain’t no power around can keep a good man down

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
  17. Clyde says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    My state has early voting so I will cast my vote physically this way.
    Section 230 came about in the stone age before Facebook and Twitter was around. It was put forth to help AOL and CompuServe be neutral platforms. The FCC has been making noises about updating and reinterpretation of Sec. 230 for the year 2020. Of course this will only take place if Trump gets back in.

    The Fight Over Section 230—and the Internet as We Know It …
    https://www.wired.com/story/fight-over-section-230-internet-as-we-know-it
    At the center of all these debates is a bit of legislation that came into being well before Facebook and Twitter, back when the internet was plodding along at dialup speeds: Section 230 of the 1996…

    The two bit punks at facebook and twitter can also be prosecuted for making campaign donations in kind to Biden/Democrats and not declaring these donations. One pundit said this will be a quicker route for reigning them in during election season.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @vhrm
  18. A former UK Deputy PM helps cover up the crimes of a former American Vice-president. The parallelism is striking.

  19. Lot says:

    New Zealand just reelected its single-mom 40 year old prime minister in its biggest landslide in the modern era. Her father was a police detective and prominent local Mormon, her baby-daddy a handsome TV show host.

    While I would not have voted for her, I am envious of New Zealand having a functional left-wing party that is something other than a globalist-elite/hate-whitey party. When was this last true of the USA? 1992? It would be nice to have a left wing party in the US that wasn’t centered on the hatred and destruction of whites.

    Interestingly, Nick Clegg’s LDP in England had a base of global elites and upscale left wing whites, while Corbyn’s Labour was the hate-whitey party of lunpenproles, blacks, Asians, and Irish. Corbyn’s district for a long while was the most Irish in England, but I believe has now been Browned, Blacked, and gentrified to the point that’s not longer the case.

  20. Dan Hayes says:

    Joe,
    Tsk, tsk, more respect should be accorded America’s premier Italo-American Family! Irish-Americans have The Biden Crime Family while Italo-Americans are saddled with the cuomos!

  21. @Pat Hannagan

    It’s a lot like American reports breathlessly repeated at Daily Stormer about how Australia is under some sort of Stalinesque purge of the proletariat, when that’s only in Victoria.

    Does anyone understand how huge Australia is?

    I’m locked down in a state the size of central Europe, recently joined by South Australia and New Zealand to equate to western and Eastern Europe united at last at the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    I’m absolutely free to go anywhere maskless, unmolested, full of vigour within these confines.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
  22. Anonymous[315] • Disclaimer says:

    In the UK, Nick Clegg is best known for his betrayal of British youth in the 2010 General Election, in which he gave his solemn promise to the British electorate to scrap tuition fees for university students – something, incidentally imposed by the Thatcherite New Labour Party -if returned to power. As it happened, a ‘hung’ parliament after the Election lead to Nick Clegg’s Liberal Party keeping the Tory Party’s David Cameron in power. As a doggy treat, Clegg was ‘dignified’ by the title of ‘Deputy Prime Minister’.
    Basically, Clegg was just ‘spunked and dumped’ by Cameron, if you pardon the expression. He was cynically used by the Tories, got nothing in return – only the hatred of British youth at his cowardice and treachery. The Liberal voite collapsed at the subsequent 2015 election, and Clegg was dumped by his own Sheffield Attercliffe constituents.

  23. @slumber_j

    Maybe I’m wrong, but this strikes me as a phenomenon that only cropped up in my adulthood–this revolving door between politics and the dissemination of information, mostly through journalism.

    It’s only common for one party. No prize for guessing which one.

    I don’t know when your adulthood started, but I too only noticed this phenomenon after Stephanopoulos seamlessly switched to journalism while everyone was supposed to pretend that this guy who had just given his sweat, blood and money to install Clinton was an objective and dispassionate observer, even going on to be the “neutral” “moderator” of electoral “debates”. (By the way, what kind of “debate” is it where the competing sides get different questions, one side getting all wedge-driving gotcha questions, the other side getting fat kabuki pitches? Never mind, we know the answer.)

    Anyway, it has been going on for some time and in some quantity. A more recent in-your-face one was Eliot Spittzer going from disgraced gubernatorial sex fetishist to “trusted” “authoritative” journalist in the space of a few months.

    Ann Coulter had a chapter about the Democrat government-media revolving door in one of her books, and that was years ago. If she republished today, I’m sure she could effortlessly double or triple it. And the brazenness of party ideologues posing as neutral public informers has increased.

    In the past, say since the founding of the Federal Reserve, there has been a revolving door between Wall Street and government. Those snakes were (and are) harder to spot though. In the case of journalists, at least you can see who is trying to cheat you.

  24. eD says:

    Clegg is probably the most unpopular politician of some significance in the UK.

    However, there is probably a cultural factor here. British media, except maybe the BBC in the past (though not present), are unabashedly partisan, usually in favor of the Tories. There is no just no concept of having a neutral media platform, or that an outfit could get into legal trouble for claiming it is such a platform but actually being partisan. Plus someone like Clegg would make a useful fall guy.

  25. @Pat Hannagan

    For Panthers next week in lieu of the mighty Parramatta Eels

    And why, underneath the Heavens
    With the stars burning and exploding
    I know why I could never let you down
    When you come

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
  26. @Pat Hannagan

    Mrs just complained about my singing.

    To Penrith, may you be all you were born to be

  27. El Dato says:

    By Harry and St. George!!!!

    Why not celebrate this biggest transatlantic collaboration against the Forces Of Fascism since Lend-Lease, and possibly since the Zimmerman Telegram?

  28. Michael S says:

    Is anyone at all surprised that the political-media revolving door now extends to social media? It was obviously going to happen when the social media companies “partnered” (merged) with lamestream.

    And as we all know, the revolving door only moves for Democrats and Establishment Republicans.

  29. Barnard says:
    @Almost Missouri

    The Stupid Party of course, is so stupid, it allowed George Stephanopoulos to moderate one of the 2012 Republican primary debates where he asked questions that were fed to him by the Obama campaign. Paul Ryan ended up on the board of directors of Fox News and Joe Scarborough ended up on TV although he has abandoned the party along with nearly every position he held when he was first elected to Congress in 1994.

  30. @Almost Missouri

    All true and I fully agree.

    To piss on the Republicans a bit, however, they get gigs as corporate lobbyists. And don’t mind taking money from open borders and corporate funds.

    So no they don’t get a megaphone but “our” side also gets the Moolah.

  31. Me cogitating on the confabulations of americans and their next absurd election of their king to court Israel

  32. Altai says:

    Important to note that the Lib-Dems were both socially and economically liberal, so even more of a perfect fit for being an establishment flunky.

  33. Having learned more about the UK’s history than its politics in college, I was initially confused when I read the Liberal Democrats spewing all sorts of left wing nonsense in the 1990s. This was the party of Gladstone after all.

    But the drift is always to the left. _National Review_’s decline is well documented, as it basically became the water boy for international commerce and war after 9/11. I’m also saddened that _Reason_ has been squishy even longer. I realize the libertarians don’t get a lot of traction around here, but they used to appear principled and did seem to understand their side and their allies were on the right, when push came to shove.

    I wish I had Steve’s sense of irony and good humor. I find little to nothing redeeming in those that will replace us. (Not saying Steve finds them redeeming either, just that I can’t laugh.)

    • Agree: Kylie
  34. Jack D says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In order for the law to be interpreted in this way, the courts have to be inclined to go along with preventing Facebook from exercising censorship. I feels as if the Overton Window is shifting in the other direction. The tenor of the times is that censorship is good if it prevents evil racists from spreading their lies among the muddleheaded masses. Good people like Clegg will see to it that Facebook is not used as a tool to spread such such false propaganda. It is well established law that companies like Facebook can exercise oversight over content to prevent the spread of child porn, etc. Are not the lies of Giuliani just another form of pornography? You can see that if you want to, you can rationalize almost anything. First comes the decision and then comes the justification.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  35. Jack D says:

    They are not going to try this strategy again. The Streisand Effect is real. The NY Post (which is not exactly a secret website to begin with) has gotten far more free publicity for this story out of the censorship stories than if Facebook, Twitter, etc. had just allowed it to propagate like any other Post story.

    They are going to have to think of another way. Harsher measures are needed. We need the Great Firewall of America. China can offer technical assistance in how to implement this. Russia has already prepared to cut its internet from the rest of the world if necessary.

    • Replies: @ES
  36. The Post story alleges that Biden met with a Ukrainian businessman in 2015 – when the businessman was paying his son Hunter $50,000-a-month.

    It was $83,333.

  37. @Jack D

    I understand the point you made here, Jack and know all that already. I’m guessing this is not your field, and I’m no lawyer either, but I have read a bit about Section 230 of the Communications Act as administered by the FCC.

    Yes, FB, Twitter, etc. can censor whatever they want, as the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply. However, as a publisher they are not immune to lawsuits from someone, say, that Delaware R-Senate candidate, alleging that these Big-Tech companies have broken a contract or are discriminating, or even libel or slander in that the censor software specifically calls them out as “hateful”, “anti-whatever”, etc.

    I understand the justifications they will make, but suits can be won in court, still. How this all goes also depends on who works at the FCC. There you go again. Trump need to hire wisely. He does need more time to fill positions with the good guys.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  38. Lot says:

    A Muslim shouting Allahu Akbar beheaded a suburban middle school teacher outside Paris yesterday.

    https://barenakedislam.com/2020/10/16/paris-muslim-terrorist-shouting-allahu-akbar-beheads-teacher-who-showed-cartoons-of-prophet-mohammed-to-his-students/

    Two questions:

    who are the worst people on Earth to admit as migrants, Chechans or Somalis? I’m sure it is one of the two.

    what population percentage of Muslims cause free speech laws to become dead letters because of the Muslim custom and practice of murdering people who “insult Islam”? Obviously France’s 15% Islam means as a practical matter no free speech. Is the 8% or so in the UK enough as well?

  39. @Almost Missouri

    Excellent post, and another fascinating phenomenon is that participants in the Russia-Collusion coup attempt, like McCabe, Page, and Brennan, are rewarded with jobs at CNN and MSNBC.

  40. Jack D says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I think you are missing my point. Section 230 says:

    “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”

    You don’t HAVE to censor links under 230 – if Facebook provides a link to a Post story and the Post story is libelous, then the Post is in trouble, not Facebook or your ISP. That’s what 230 says.

    But it doesn’t say anywhere that you can’t. It doesn’t say that if you censor some links but not others that this somehow makes you a publisher. It’s a good theory but that’s not what 230 says. Maybe it would be a good idea for Congress to put this into the law, but it isn’t. Even “creative” judges would be hard pressed to read this into the statute. We know that service providers have been censoring links for various reasons (copyright infringement, pornography, etc.) for many years without losing their Section 230 shield because 230 doesn’t address FAILURE to link at all. It just says that if you go ahead and link then you can’t get in trouble if you didn’t originate the content yourself. It’s not a common carrier statute that says that you have to transmit any and all content.

  41. theMann says:

    Oh for crying out loud, Ideology is not what unites these thugs we laughingly refer to as The Liberal Regime.

    LOOTING IS WHAT UNITES THESE THUGS.

    Strip away all of the lies, moral posturing, Racialist preening, and holier than thou attitudinalism, and these foul creatures remain as they have always been, and will always be:

    Ordinary liars in the pursuit of common theft.

    There is no rule of Law, no Rights, no Liberties, no Justice, no Virtue; only what they can steal, and how long they can steal it.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  42. Anonymous[378] • Disclaimer says:

    Faceclegg

    • Replies: @Cortes
  43. Anonymous[378] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Should the socials not be treated as common carriers? They enforce no shortage of inane gender and tolerance standards already. Why do they deserve your loophole?

    Sec. 230 ought to protect the weak, not the strong expressly and exclusively.

  44. slumber_j says:
    @Almost Missouri

    I don’t know when your adulthood started

    I’m 55, so a while ago.

    In the past, say since the founding of the Federal Reserve, there has been a revolving door between Wall Street and government. Those snakes were (and are) harder to spot though. In the case of journalists, at least you can see who is trying to cheat you.

    That should be true, but it seems to me that few people notice this weirdness happening right in our faces. Nick Clegg is censoring Facebook, and just about nobody cares?? How much more brazen would things have to get for the public to wise up?

  45. guest says:

    PR team is horrible rhetoric. PR doesn’t have the power to memoryhole things. Facebook is acting like the Ministry of Truth.

  46. VP of Global Affairs & Communications means a full-time, in-house lobbyist.

    A political insider getting rich based on who he knows. Where have we heard that one before?

    As a general principle, politicians (and their domestic partners and family members) should be categorically prohibited from becoming lobbyists.

    It should be a lifetime ban, but I can be persuaded to allow it when every government official, who had been at the ex-politico‘s area of control or oversight, has moved on.

    Still, that is merely a government-oriented solution to a problem caused by too much government.

    The least sucky solution is to make government as small as possible, so as to minimize the inevitable amount of patronage.

    I realize that Sleepy’s flip-floppy support for gay marriage, and Trump’s racism, are far more important concerns.

  47. No surprise here, we’re swimming in British disinformation right now. Much of Faceborg censorship takes place in Ireland and the UK, so people like Clegg get to decide what we read here. Thankfully I don’t rely on FB for my news.

    Their ambassador to Washington has been leaking all sorts of anti-Trump garbage to CNN. We really seem to be living in a simulation where the Russians are being talked about all the time when it’s the Brits who have hacked our democracy non-stop since 2015. Steele was part of a team, it must be remembered. Meanwhile they do what clever people do, they complain about how America is harming them (see their endless complaints about chlorinated chickens and political correctness which they claim is American when it isn’t).

  48. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    Biden winning is preposterous.

    Biden falls short on every historical precedent.

    Just one indicator:

    Huge survey gallup poll showing majority of Americans say they are better off than four years ago.

    THE FAKE HORSERACE IS A MASSIVE CASH HAUL FOR THE MEDIA.

    Watch Biden limp to the finish line and underperform like every lame old former senator who’s ever run for potus.

    This election cycle reeks of… 84 Mondale 96 Dole 04 Kerry.

    Do not fall for the hoax…

  49. @slumber_j

    Thank you, Mr. J.

    You speak for all of us.

    • Thanks: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @slumber_j
  50. In UK politics, Clegg is a Remainer – he opposes Brexit. Most Remainers want Biden to win because they think he’s more likely to side with the EU against their UK Brexiteer enemies, thus forcing the UK into a closer EU orbit. So Clegg is probably favouring one US Presidential candidate over another for reasons unrelated to the interests of Americans.

    It’s a kind of Murchison Letter incident.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  51. @Almost Missouri

    (By the way, what kind of “debate” is it where the competing sides get different questions, one side getting all wedge-driving gotcha questions, the other side getting fat kabuki pitches? Never mind, we know the answer.)

    Republicans really are the stupid party.

    They continually agree to these “debates” where there is a huge built in bias against them. (It’s a testament to the shittiness of the Democrats that the Republicans still manage to win a lot of them.)

    Properly, the candidates themselves should be questioning each other. The moderator would only keep time. Or better time is automatic–with clocks and red lights; perhaps even detecting interruption–charging that time to the interrupter–and allowing the speaker to recover that time.

    Candidate questioning might not work super-well for Trump as he’s lazy about preparing and emitting clear cogent verbiage. (Though it might force him to do so. And against Biden who is himself weak it wouldn’t be terrible.)

    But simply insisting on a format of “your pick your questioner and we pick our questioner” would do it. It could be media people–Trump could use Tucker–or just their own media people who would come ready to lob grenades at the opponent.

    Democrats could always refuse. But they would look weak do so. This format is inherently even handed and everyone can see it. So why agree to a setup that is inherently biased against you? Just asinine.

  52. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    Biden US campaign = Corbyn labor UK campaign

    Dem braintrust has never been weaker. No fresh ideas on how to avoid Corbyn’s crash and burn. They are repeating the folly.

    Gnashing of teeth and rending of garments dead ahead.

    This is what happens when you let leftist ideology replace liberalism.

    JILLJOE BIDEN R.I.P.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    , @Reg Cæsar
  53. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @slumber_j

    Nick Clegg was raised up as a swamp creature. His “career,” like that of other Deep State puppets like Barry Obama, was carefully staged to place Clegg in a position where he could do the maximum amount of damage on behalf of his Deep State patrons. (Keep points in italics.)

    Look at the stages of his career and ask yourself whether a non-spook could simply sashay into these jobs:

    Between 1992 and 1993, he was employed by GJW Government Relations Ltd, which lobbied on behalf of Libya.[47][48]

    In 1993, Clegg won the inaugural Financial Times’ David Thomas Prize, in remembrance of an FT journalist killed on assignment in Kuwait in 1991.

    He was later sent to Hungary, where he wrote articles about the mass privatisation of industries in the former communist bloc.[36]

    He took up a post at the European Commission in April 1994, working in the TACIS aid programme to the former Soviet Union. For two years, Clegg was responsible for developing direct aid programmes in Central Asia and the Caucasus worth €50 million. He was involved in negotiations with Russia on airline overflight rights, and launched a conference in Tashkent in 1993 that founded TRACECA—an international transport programme for the development of a transport corridor for Europe, the Caucasus and Asia. Vice-President and Trade Commissioner Leon Brittan then offered him a job in his private office, as a European Union policy adviser and speechwriter. As part of this role, Clegg was in charge of the EC negotiating team on Chinese and Russian accession talks to the World Trade Organization.[36]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg#Careers_before_politics

  54. @Jack D

    But it doesn’t say anywhere that you can’t. It doesn’t say that if you censor some links but not others that this somehow makes you a publisher. It’s a good theory but that’s not what 230 says.

    No, I think you misunderstood me, from this part. I don’t think this is what makes them a publisher either. However, if they go talking about “reducing the distribution of …”, which is their euphemism for censoring, aren’t they setting themselves up for some not even all that creative of a judge to go: “OK, publishers distribute information. If you are a platform, then you don’t distribute squat. People put content on, and your computers store it, and other people can get served this content by the server program and through the internet.”. It’s a fine line, and probably some of this has been hashed out.

    However, these people are shooting themselves in the foot, IMO, with this language, and I’m very glad of that. They could have used some kind of computer term that nobody knows because they pretty much made it up.

    As you said too, though, much depends on people’s political aims. If Trump wins this election, maybe he can keep this one thought in his head for a while. Better yet, he should hire a “Big Tech Czar”. (Whatever happened to all the Czars that used to work in the US Government?)

  55. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    No it’s a Biden Landslide. White suburban women according to the FT favor Biden by 21 point. White men favor Trump by 20. Mostly over corona chan and especially BLM.

    White women love BLM like a romance novel about sexy vampires or bondage billionaires.

    Biden signs all over the place in my area. Not a single Trump sign.

    Christine Todd Whitman has an FT editorial backing Biden. White women viscerally hate hate hate Trump as he us the avatar of their most hated enemy. White men.

  56. slumber_j says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Good to know. Despite my handle I have nothing to do with that corporation btw–although I may own some of their stock come to think of it.

  57. @Clyde

    Thanks, Clyde and:

    The two bit punks at facebook and twitter can also be prosecuted for making campaign donations in kind to Biden/Democrats and not declaring these donations.

    Great idea! There are lots of ways to fight, but the R’s have never learned to fight at all. Trump has to some degree. Time to kick ass without holding back politically, before it gets to all-out war.

    • LOL: Charon
  58. Lurker says:
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Falling standards.

    I can maybe live with “hush-up” but “$50,000-a-month” makes no sense.

    • Replies: @hhsiii
  59. @AndrewR

    A fatwah on any use of these “services” on any government device, from any Government premises, or during working hours is a good start.
    A nasty little kicker would prohibit the transportation into Govt. properties any device that’s ever been used for such access: National security, donchano. Putin may be hacking twitter et al on these devices to spy on the US government.

    As for Clegg, isn’t it an offense for Foreign Johnny’s to interfere in US elections?
    Can we expect an extradition request (with a rider that he get the full Assange treatment)?

    • Replies: @Rob McX
  60. Lurker says:
    @georgesdelatour

    Also, just at a gut emotional level, the Remainer left/liberal types reflexively favour the Dems and have all the symptoms of TDS.

  61. J.Ross says:
    @Lot

    France never had free speech as we understand it: as Charlie Hebdo lampooned a certain famous pedophile warlord, it quashed criticism of other unreasonable non-native elements. Imprisonment for saying or writing words is a pretty regular headline out of that country. Certainly historical France under various governments was never a place where you could talk freely. The worst outcome of leftists licensing Muslims to essentially nullify basic public safety law is not gaining one more thing the French are not permitted to discuss, but other people figuring out what’s going on (murder: okay, so long as you’re really, really angry) and joining the fun. Thus the police murder campaign against the yellow vests: musn’t let the whites act Muslim! Witness our own government at different levels jumping back and forth over the legality of murder and massing, depending on the ideology of the offender.
    Potential objection: he’s not murdering and getting away with it, they shot him, and had he lived he’d have gone to jail. Everyone, point and laugh at the law student who’s still living in the twentieth century, and who still doesn’t know that tribalism won. Tribalism won. There are no individuals, apart from individual white dinosaurs getting picked off individually. The Muslim Categoric can murder with impunity, and this tribe is fundamentally criminal enough to use that extralegal power to guarantee continuous conditions. Individual Muslims might be spent in the course of that, but that’s how war works, and Islam is unambiguous that they died well, and the community is commanded to laud them and support their families. This is technically what Saddam Hussein was doing when he gave money to Palestinian terrorist families: it wasn’t a random thing, it wasn’t [just] a PR stunt, it was a sacrament. Ignorant unbelievers are pacified with carefully worded disapproval of the taking of innocent life (think about it for ten seconds. Are blasphemers innocent? In Islam?). The “Frenchman” in question only died because he decided to attack police.

  62. Voltarde says:

    How much salary and benefits does Mr. Clegg get from his V.P. position at FB in return for the latter being granted privileged access to the former’s select social network (Toffbook)? Talk about buying grifter-guanxi insurance.

    It’s likely that Mr. Clegg just listens to and then promptly agrees with whatever his woke junior staff tell him to think and do, and trembles at the consequences of not agreeing with them.

    Politicians frequently talk of “their career in public service”. Bullfeathers. For almost all of them, it’s a glide path to undeserved remuneration, pseudo-celebrity status, and the opportunity to have a retinue. In the “prime” of their “career”, the politician gives orders to the retinue, but as iSteve has observed, in the politician’s dotage the chain of command is often reversed.

  63. Yet again, Brits interfering in American elections, and making the Russians look like pikers.

    • Agree: Mr. Anon
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  64. @Whiskey

    CTW was yet another pure-bred RINO.

    She knocked off a tax-&-spend, despised, DEM gubernatorial incumbent and came into office with a GOP-controlled legislature.

    As I recall, the Republicans did NOTHING, except to rollback the infuriating, DEM-imposed, sales tax on unused TP.

    Of course.

  65. @Lot

    Lot, well the police shot him to death, so there’s that to be happy about. In the USofA the “protestors” would be out in force because, well because.

  66. Muggles says:
    @AndrewR

    I’m no expert on tech law but I would imagine that a competent president could make life very unpleasant for these tech corporations, even without the cooperation of Congress

    I hate to be a sourpuss, but this seems to be wishful thinking. You say “competent president” making “life unpleasant” but have zero idea of what the laws are. Such as the First Amendment which for the most part keeps presidents, competent or otherwise, hands off the Internet.

    You offer zero insight into your magic solution. I read this often here, born out of frustration. I greatly sympathize but we should all be happy presidents can’t readily “make life unpleasant” for businesses they don’t like.

    Hearings are now being held on the Sec. 230 FCC issue and tech censorship. But Congress makes the laws, not the President. Executive orders mainly affect the Executive branch. Banning them from using Twitter or Facebook, Instagram, etc. wouldn’t hurt their ad revenues much.

    Congress making advertising costs paid to these tech firms non tax deductible would hurt them greatly. But Congress would have to pass such laws, not just by presidential decree.

    Wishful thinking is a waste of time.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @J.Ross
    , @Mr. Anon
  67. @Jack D

    But it doesn’t say anywhere that you can’t. It doesn’t say that if you censor some links but not others that this somehow makes you a publisher.

    Sure it does:

    “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”

    Once you start censoring, everything on your website is provided by *you*.

    • Disagree: Jack D
  68. Former British Deputy Prime Minister Sir Nick Clegg was involved in Facebook’s decision to ‘reduce the distribution’ of a New York Post Joe Biden story, reports suggest.

    As a favor to Neil Kinnock, who is grateful to Joe for making his name known in America.

  69. @Muggles

    Such as the First Amendment which for the most part keeps presidents, competent or otherwise, hands off the Internet.

    He can use the bully pulpit to drive down their stock price.

    • Replies: @Muggles
  70. @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s Catch-22. The social media monopolists can only be reined in by politicians. But until they have been reined-in, the monopolists get to pick which politicians will be in power.

    Once the monopolists put the Democrats in power, the Democrats will return the favor by protecting the monopolies. The monopolists will then use their control over the flow of information to make sure the Democrats win again. Rinse and repeat every four years, forever.

    Unless Trump pulls off another miracle, the future of American politics looks pretty bleek.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  71. More riots and looting coming? Cops who shot Boy after he stabbed Jane are exonerated:

    Ron Ely challenges Santa Barbara district attorney after fatal shooting of his son deemed ‘justifiable’

    Another excuse for the Ubangi to stomp.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  72. J.Ross says:
    @Muggles

    Such as the First Amendment which for the most part keeps presidents, competent or otherwise, hands off the Internet.

    Not exactly: in the current example, one and only one political party (which would include all their presidents even if dead or not currently in office) has total power, Americanly enough through their corporate sponsors, who might as well be an official party organ.

  73. vhrm says:
    @Clyde

    It was put forth to help AOL and CompuServe be neutral platforms.

    I think there is very little difference between AOL and FB as communications platforms.

    The same arguments back then are the same arguments now.

    Little has changed except that FB and Twitter have decided to be woke and censurious.

    Why? My best guess it’s it’s because HBD is not in the Overton window. If you don’t know the HBD basics on race and sex avg differences in preferences and capabilities then discrimination is the only explanation for discrepancies on outcomes and in representation.

    The tech people literally don’t know any better:
    -a large majority of tech industry workers are “nerds” of some sort and have generally lived sheltered lives.
    – they haven’t encountered non-white collar people in any meaningful way since they started college, if ever.
    -since HBD is deeply suppressed/frowned upon they don’t know it exists and they don’t see enough people from the lower half of the curve to be driven to “notice”

  74. hhsiii says:
    @Richard S

    Like the line in Sturges’ The Great McGinty, uttered by a party machine get-out-the-vote hood played by William “Uncle Charlie” DeMerest:

    “If it wasn’t for graft you’d have a very low class of man in politics: men with no ambition.”

    • Agree: Richard S
    • Replies: @hhsiii
  75. hhsiii says:
    @Lurker

    I think if you used it like “he was a $50,000-a-month whore.”

  76. vhrm says:
    @Lot

    who are the worst people on Earth to admit as migrants, Chechans or Somalis? I’m sure it is one of the two.

    About Somalis…
    The transcript/translation in this story is worth a read. (idk the Somali community, but the whole thing seems very plausible based on my experience with other immigrant communities)

    It is inspiring and slightly horrifying at the same time.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/minnesota-democrat-blow-whistle-voter-fraud?s=09

    Bad: outright vote buying in Minnesota (though it used to be a thing among whites in the US too some many decades ago…)

    Good: immigrant clearly influenced by American values saying in part “we can do better in America… don’t do the same crap that messed up the old country”.

    Good: vote for people based on their competence and ideas!

    Bad: … or based on clan or that they’re Somali… [but still not because of getting paid]

  77. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”

    That’s common carrier world. The cell phone carriers don’t edit content of texts, for example, they merely provide the means for person A’s message to reach person B. ISP’s don’t examine emails and edit them, either.

    We know that service providers have been censoring links for various reasons (copyright infringement, pornography, etc.) for many years without losing their Section 230 shield

    Because they are performing a public service that is expected of them. Digital Rights Management is still a thing. But they don’t decide to suppress one kind of copyright infringement while ignoring others, at least not as far as I know. That would be an editorial decision.

    When Facebook and Twitter decide to suppress political content they are acting in an editorial manner, they are in fact engaging in publishing. They are publishers, just as surely as the New Duranty Times, Inc. is a publisher. If AOL started blacking out emails they don’t like, if VZ started vetting people’s texts and refusing to pass on those that they didn’t like, it would be the same thing as what Fakebook and Jack Dorsey are doing.

    Publishing. Being a publisher means you are responsible for what appears on your dead trees, or your web site, and certain liabilities exist.

    I’m aware it hasn’t been tested in court. Yet. But reading the legislation it becomes clear the 1990’s Internet was not intended to become the private walled garden of plutocrats. Feel free to disagree. We’re not on FB or TWTr so it’s ok, you can do that.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  78. Muggles says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    He can use the bully pulpit to drive down their stock price.

    Re: the President’s ability to reign in the tech monopolies, esp. those censoring speech.

    Charming thought. Almost as obsolete as the phrase “bully pulpit.”

    These tech giants sell advertising. With near monopolies they make huge profits with relatively little overhead. Investors buy shares based upon dividend yields and eventually, expected capital gains via notional discounted future cash flows.

    What can Trump say to affect that? He’s been bad mouthing them for years but they still happily grow richer. Cash trumps pulpits. (Odd phrase, since the president is himself Trump.)

    We should be glad that presidential ire can’t by itself destroy legal private businesses. That would be a statist nightmare (e.g. China).

    If there were teeth to the Sec. 230 FCC act issue, that could be applied. Drop their publisher’s liability protection for content. Also, w/ Congress, could make their ad sales non tax deductible when and if found guilty of censorship and editorial bias. That would dry up income for them.

    Some of this might happen, since the tech boys have gone full Woke and don’t even apologize for it. Congress has to stop it which means there needs to be public outrage directed to them. Otherwise they’ll take tech money and do nothing. Just like now.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  79. Clegg not real Brit.

    Mum – Dutch
    Dad – Russian aristocracy mostly (minor Brit)
    Wife – Spaniard
    Kids – Roman Papists
    Policies – Globalist (PC., pro-immigrant)

  80. Thoughts says:

    Look HuffPo has an ISteve Reader (sorta)

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-admissions-tests-volunteer_n_5f85e856c5b681f7da1c5bf3

    I’m not against the SAT (the old one with analogies)

    This just all-around sucks

    Immigration ruined it

    Because her bullshit about book club and Volunteering (she must be rich) and being involved in Public Service is the Jewish/LoserRichWhite Equivalent of Asian Test Prep

    Both are bullshit.

    My idea of the teen years is doing moderate test prep (buy a book, take a pre-test) and then getting a job during the summer as a Roofer. Teens should be doing manual grunge work labor, not sissy panty Volunteering and Public Service (both unpaid and therefore for the kids of the elite only) I was forced to do Volunteer work to graduate highschool which cost me about 4K in salary. Bastards.

  81. @Muggles

    Re: the President’s ability to reign in the tech monopolies, esp. those censoring speech…

    Odd phrase, since the president is himself…

    …not king.

  82. Dan Hayes says:
    @Whiskey

    Bob Grant of happy NYC radio memory baptized her Christine “Witless” Todd Whitman. She now serves as the quintessential role model for witless political has beens!

  83. Wilkey says:
    @slumber_j

    Maybe I’m wrong, but this strikes me as a phenomenon that only cropped up in my adulthood–this revolving door between politics and the dissemination of information, mostly through journalism. It started with the children of prominent politicians (Eleanor Mondale, Chris Cuomo et al.), then we got the astonishing if not much remarked-upon second career of George Stephanopoulos and other of his ilk, and now this

    Tim Russert went from being an aide to Daniel Moynihan and Mario Cuomo to Washington Bureau Chief at NBC in just a few years; and Bill Moyers was a top aide for LBJ before getting gigs with PBS, CBS, and NBC.

    Old time newspapers were extremely partisan and biased, but with the advent of national news media, and the federal requirement that broadcasters be technically non-partisan, to some extent they tried to pretend that they weren’t taking sides. They’ve increasingly stopped bothering to even pretend.

    With the increased popularity of cable, and the creation of Fox News, networks have even less incentive to fake moderation. So nowadays they give gigs to the children of leftist politicians – Chelsea Clinton had one for a bit – and any cuck RINO they can find, like Meghan McCain and Abby Huntsman. Here in Utah the local press even doubled down. After the late RINO Bob Bennett was defeated by the more conservative Mike Lee at the state convention, the local Mormon Church-owned paper gave the voters two middle fingers by giving weekly columns not only to Bob Bennett but also to his son, Jim, even though neither of them could write worth a damn.

  84. MEH 0910 says:

  85. Dan Hayes says:
    @MEH 0910

    Now you know why Bo Erickson had never been chosen to moderate any of the presidential debates!

  86. @Pat Hannagan

    Because we adopted a value system that sacralizes victimhood and governments increase their power by claiming to be redressing the claims of victims.

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
  87. Mr. Anon says:
    @Muggles

    The President could issue an EO forbidding any government agency from having a Facebook or Twitter presence. More pertinantly, he could order US Government employees to stop using Google on their work computers (citing security concerns). A lot of purchases originate as Google searches. A lot of money is spent by the Federal Government. Fewer searches, fewer purchases, less ad revenue.

    • Replies: @Muggles
  88. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot

    who are the worst people on Earth to admit as migrants, Chechans or Somalis? I’m sure it is one of the two.

    People who come to your country and then presume to tell you

    What it Means to be an American

    • Thanks: HammerJack
  89. @Anonymous

    JILLJOE BIDEN R.I.P.

    Are you predicting a repeat of Molly and Horace Greeley in 1872?

  90. Travis says:
    @AndrewR

    They could use the Federal Government to enforce Civil rights abuses.

    Can a business just refuse service to someone?
    To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. Twitter refuses to allow the NY Post from accessing Twitter. Their decision is not consistent, as they routinely allow non-fact checked stories to be disseminated on their platform. Could the phone company ban the NY Post from using their phones? Could the postal services refuse to deliver Magazines which had articles which were never fact checked ?

    Since Twitter is similar to mail delivery, and is used by individuals and businesses to send information , like the mail services, or the telephone companies, they may not be permitted to suspend users accounts, or ban users, who are not breaking any laws. There is a clear pattern of violating the civil rights individuals based on their political orientation. Maybe the Feds should investigate this attack on the civil liberties of Americans who are prohibited from using Twitter.

    California prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination, including attempted bans based on physical attributes, political beliefs and geographical origin. Twitter is based in California, so it a violation of ones Civil Rights if they ban customers based on their political beliefs. Yet is is apparent that Twitter bans users based on their political beliefs.

  91. Muggles says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Yes, these are feasible suggestions.

    Weak tea though. Also all legally questionable.

    You can bet the lawsuits would fly immediately.

    I doubt (though haven’t checked) that Facebook or Twitter sells ads on government users pages/tweets. So them being gone wouldn’t hurt their ad sales.

    Any president resorting to this kind of thing would look pretty weak and vengeful.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @J Hayek
  92. Rob McX says:
    @Bill B.

    Thanks. Not having read beyond the headline, I didn’t know the people involved in this were illegal (funny how the URL includes this fact but the article buries it a couple of paragraphs deep).

    Remind me again why diversity is so wonderful.

  93. @Reg Cæsar

    Well I rocked over Italy
    And I rocked over Spain
    I rocked to Memphis
    It was all the same

    Sounds like the Covid National Anthem

    • LOL: Gary in Gramercy
  94. @anon

    One more of many examples why expansion and packing of the Supreme Court will probably be the coup de grace.

  95. Rob says:

    Is Clegg an American citizen? F he is not, this is a clear case of a foreigner interfering in an election, if Clegg has ever talked to someone in the Biden campaign, then Biden better hope the Democrats keep the House.

    Impeach Biden!

  96. Mr. Anon says:
    @Muggles

    Yes, these are feasible suggestions.

    Weak tea though. Also all legally questionable.

    You can bet the lawsuits would fly immediately.

    Every action taken by Trump is deemed to be legally questionable by the media/Democrats/etc. If you balk at something because it might be challenged in court, than YOU are the one engaging in wishful thinking.

    I doubt (though haven’t checked) that Facebook or Twitter sells ads on government users pages/tweets. So them being gone wouldn’t hurt their ad sales.

    The Facebook and Twitter actions I suggested are purely symbolic. The Google one would have real economic consequences. Those consequences would be worse for companies that advertise on Google than for Google itself. Who advertises on Google? Everyone. Google is today what the Yellow Pages used to be. Perhaps vendors would start trying to put some pressure on Google to be fairer just as they have put pressure on Facebook and Twitter to not be so. Would it help? Maybe. Probably not enough.

    Any president resorting to this kind of thing would look pretty weak and vengeful.

    Are you aware who the President is?

  97. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Alarmist

    Perfidious Albion. The English have never been our friends. Although I suspect a lot of countries around the World view America and the UK as mere extensions of one another. I would not be surprised if the Chinese look at the epidemic of (chinese sourced) Fentanyl in the U.S. and view it as payback for the Opium Wars.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  98. J Hayek says:
    @Muggles

    As an alternative, make then all use ad blockers – even better, block the ads at the network level.

  99. @Mr. Anon

    It is no accident that the most severe small and medium size business-killing lockdowns are taking place in the Anglo-American world, where predatory capitalism runs rampant for the benefit of the oligarch class.

  100. ES says:
    @Jack D

    The Streisand effect was real, when the internet was a wild and woolly open space. It has become centralized and controlled in a shockingly short period. When Google-Amazon-Facebook-Twitter-Microsoft-Apple-Paypal-Visa-MasterCard have the power to suppress websites, posts, blogs, tweets, etc., it’s much harder for a Streisand effect to run its natural course. We need to regulate these companies as public utilities and impose First Amendment free speech rules on them. Facebook and Twitter are the printing presses of the internet. Freedom of the press wouldn’t be worth much if newspapers did not have access to printing presses, or if a John D. Rockefeller owned 90% of them. The republicans might have done something about this in Trump’s first 2 years in office, but they had more pressing matters. At least we got some corporate tax cuts and almost repealed Obamacare. And the troops will be home from Syria any day now.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  101. Rob McX says:
    @Bill Jones

    As for Clegg, isn’t it an offense for Foreign Johnny’s to interfere in US elections?

    Revenge for Meghan Markle, probably. Surely the Americans didn’t think they were going to get away with that.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  102. AndrewR says:
    @Rob McX

    I think I speak for the vast majority of Americans who know anything about her: she does not represent us. Harry is just a castrated simp.

  103. @Hugo Silva

    Hugo, thank you for that. It really is very simple.

    But that being said, a lot of work went into exacerbating both ends of that process; instilling a permanent sense of grievance and victimhood, and playing up and augmenting the majority race’s tendency toward extreme self-criticism in the high-trust society they have brought into being.

    Hmm, what group has been intimately involved in both of these things, playing up grievance and victimhood, and hyper-empowering the sense of guilt and responsibility? Maybe a group with a special “expertise” in these techniques, and inordinately impressed with their own success in this regard, and by extension with themselves, which is also vested in the program’s success because it advances their own, tribalist interests?

    Noticing…

  104. @Jack D

    Mr. D,

    Below is a partial excerpt of the text of 230. My question for you is, (c)(2) talks about not holding the provider of an interactive computer service liable for restricting lewd material in good faith. My question for you is, by your understanding, why could they ever be held liable for such acts in light of (c)(1)? Why is that text even there?

    Are there ways to hold such providers liable for access restrictions not in good faith? If there are, as seems to be implied by the text, then you could easily make an argument that such platforms have civil liability for unduly restricting access.

    ‘(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
    (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    ‘(2) Civil liability
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

    ‘(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

    ‘(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[sic]

    ‘(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
    A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.’

    • Replies: @Jack D
  105. @MEH 0910

    What kind of jet is Mr. Biden flying around in?

    The Democrats are supposed to be swimming in campaign contributions and I didn’t figure ol’ Joe for being frugal?

    Is this something about Carbon Footprint to be campaigning in a plane that small?

    Before Mr. Trump was elected, he had what, a Boeing 757 as his campaign jet, not a puddle jumper like this? Is the Biden campaign running on fumes?

  106. @Almost Missouri

    It’s only common for one party. No prize for guessing which one

    Huckabee? Ollie North? Scarborough? (Those are just the ones that sprang to mind immediately).

    The human desire to identify with a group is bewildering to misanthropes like me. When the group is one or other side of the (R)/(D) false dichotomy, it’s even more bewildering.

    It’s like groups of rape victims, vocally asserting that one set of rape perpetrators are the good guys.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  107. @Inquiring Mind

    There’s little to no press entourage to ferry around this year, because of Covid fears. That’s my guess.

  108. @MEH 0910

    Even Wikipedia has enlisted in the Biden campaign with this article that’s locked against editing:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory

  109. @Kratoklastes

    How many debates have those guys moderated? And in Huckabee’s and North’s cases, they were not really hired as journalists, but as personalities and “contributors”. For example, Ollie North hosted a military show, since he was a famous guy who was in the military.

    Others have already commented on Scarborough, who is kind of the exception who proves the rule. He was indeed a Republican congressman who now works as a supposedly serious journalist. But he renounced his party affiliation and demanded Republicans dump Trump. So in other words, to have his “journalism” career he had to become indistinguishable from everyone else in the DemMedia Industrial Complex.

  110. @Jack D

    Section 230 says:

    “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”

    Okay but title of that section is :

    PROTECTION FOR `GOOD SAMARITAN’ BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL

    Which it goes on to define as:

    any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable

    So it is obviously meant to shield you from liability while you block obscenity, not political opinions you disagree with. There is nothing “obscene, lewd or lascivious” about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Hydroxychloroquine, for example.

    You don’t HAVE to censor links under 230 – if Facebook provides a link to a Post story and the Post story is libelous, then the Post is in trouble, not Facebook or your ISP. That’s what 230 says.

    But it doesn’t say anywhere that you can’t.

    Well, there’s the Findings and Policy that start Section 230:

    FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following: …
    `(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. …
    `(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
    POLICY- It is the policy of the United States– …
    `(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; [emphasis added]

    So it is clear that Congress wants more discourse, not less, more variety, not less, and more user control, not less. All three of those objectives are defeated by capricious censorship at the platform level. It is true that Section 230 does not prevent whatever editorial decisions you want to make if you feel like it, but then if you make those, Section 230 isn’t about you anymore.

    Furthermore, courts have already stripped defendants of Section 230 protection for minor editorial decisions:

    Hy Cite Corp. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Ariz. 2005): defendant made editorial comments in addition to hosting user-generated content.

    Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008): defendant allowed users to select gender and race preferences for roommates.

    Facebook and Twitter have had plenty to say editorially, so the Hy Cite and Fair Housing thresholds should be well surmounted by now.

  111. @Inquiring Mind

    Mr. Trump OWNED that beautiful 757, I.M. These guys are probably chartering that jet for the trip or for a spell of time. From what I just read, they usually use a 737, which would have plenty of room for Lyin’ Press sackhangers and the like.

    I don’t see an N-number to look up, but this ain’t no little slow-tation. It looks like it stands pretty tall, like a Gulfstream, but the cockpit windows and nose-gear doors don’t look like it. It’s a mid- or large-cabin business jet, so I wouldn’t call it a puddle jumper.

  112. Jack D says:
    @I Have Scinde

    In legal terms, this is called “belt and suspenders”. You have to understand that 230, like most statutes, was written by special interest lawyers/lobbyists, in this case on behalf of ISPs (not so much on behalf of Facebook, etc. because it predates them) so they tried to close off as many avenues for lawsuits against them as they could think of. Imagine that you are given a chance (and possibly only one chance) to write a “get out of jail free” statute for yourself or your company – you are going to throw in as much stuff as you think you can get away with.

    The law is not literature or a software program. You don’t get extra credit in the law for not being somewhat redundant. Maybe one section will be struck down by some future court as being unconstitutional – in that case the 2nd section is there as a 2nd line of defense. If you thought really hard you might come up with examples of suits that are foreclosed by (c)(1) that are not foreclosed by (c)(2) or vice versa, but there’s no need. If a suit is prohibited by TWO different sections of the same statute, then all the better.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS