America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Saturday, March 26, 2022
SHOULD WE LET JOE BIDEN'S MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA AND OPEN BORDERS MARK ZUCKERBERG ELECT ANY FUTURE PRESIDENTS?
NEO-FASCIST MARK ZUCKERBERG ELECTED JOE 'BRIBES' BIDEN BASED ON JOE'S PROMISE TO FLOOD AMERICA WITH 'CHEAP' LABOR ILLEGALS AND NO CAPS ON VISA PEOPLE SO MARKY WOULD NEVER HAVE TO HIRE ANYONE NOT FROM INDIA.
ZUCKERUNT MADE SURE FACEBOOK CLEANSED ALL POSTINGS THAT RELATED TO BIDEN'S GLOBAL BRIBES SUCKING.
Chad Wolf: No 'plan in place' at the southern border
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and Americans.
MICHAEL CUTLER
The culture of power and money lust of the American Corporate Community and its major players — BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Bridgewater, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Twitter, and Musk — and, of course, Gates — that draws them to a plutocracy that would never hesitate to betray America for a financial advantage or an opportunity to be a part of a global powerhouse oligarchy complicit with and colluding with malefactor government tyrannies. (avarice, cupidity, and rapaciousness)
The Department of Justice is preparing proposals to roll back the legal immunities enjoyed by Big Tech companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), in measures that will be announced as early as Wednesday, sources told the Wall Street Journal.
Via the WSJ:
The Justice Department is set to propose a rollback of legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than two decades, in an effort to make tech companies more responsible in how they police their content, according to a Trump administration official.
Section 230 gives Big Tech companies immunity from lawsuits arising from user-generated content. If a person is defamed on Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or other big tech platforms like Reddit, those platforms are not legally liable for the content like a traditional publisher might be. This allows social media platforms to host billions of posts from users without a potentially crippling legal risk.
As Big Tech platforms have grown increasingly interested in censoring content posted by their users, however, many lawmakers have argued that they are behaving like traditional publishers, censoring and editing and approving their users’ posts. As such, a growing number of lawmakers have argued that the legal immunities of Section 230 should be contingent on platforms maintaining a hands-off approach to the speech of their users.
Another problematic element of Section 230 is subsection c-2, which grants tech companies immunity from lawsuits arising from their censorship of “objectionable” content. This immunity gives them broad leeway to censor users, leaving no legal recourse for those who are censored — even if their social media accounts are critical to their livelihood or career.
However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department’s proposals go beyond merely addressing the question of censorship:
The department’s proposal, for instance, would remove legal protections when platforms facilitate or solicit third-party content or activity that violates federal criminal law, such as online scams and trafficking in illicit drugs. The department also wouldn’t confer immunity to platforms in instances involving online child exploitation and sexual abuse, terrorism or cyberstalking. Those carve-outs are needed to curtail immunity for internet companies to allow victims to seek redress, the official said.
The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil-enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons.
According to the report, it also appears that the Justice Department won’t try to strip tech companies of their immunity for censoring “objectionable” content, instead aim to spur Big Tech to be “fairer and more consistent in their decisions to take down content they find objectionable.”
Are you an insider at Google, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com.
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.
Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook’s Goal Is to Register 4 Million (ILLEGAL) Voters
Rep. Jim Jordan Blasts Biden-Big Tech Censorship: ‘If You Can’t Talk, What Do the Rest of Your Rights Mean?’
Recalling White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s revelation that the Biden Administration is working with Big Tech social media platforms to limit free speech, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) warned Friday of the threat to Americans’ First Amendment rights.
Last July, Press Secretary Psaki announced at a press conference that the Biden Administration is “flagging posts for Facebook" that the administration would like censored, a comment Sen. Josh Hawley called “really scary,“ given that it came from the federal government:
"I think it's really scary to have the federal government of the United States, the White House, compiling lists of people, organizations, whatever, and then going to a private company that, by the way, is a monopoly, Facebook, and saying: You need to censor. You need to do something about this. You need to tell these users, these private users on a private company what they can or cannot say."
At a press event on Friday, Rep. Jordan recalled that, at the time, he thought Psaki’s comment didn’t seem right to him. But now, he considers her words “very scary,” because, if free speech on social media can be denied, other types of free speech and liberties are at risk, as well:
“I’m like, ‘Wait, something doesn’t seem right about this.’ You got the press person in the White House in the press room making those kind of statements.
“If you can’t talk, what do the rest of your rights mean? I mean, can you really practice your faith? And so, this is the concern Americans have. And, whether it’s Big Tech, whether it’s the Cancel Culture mob coming after people who don’t speak what the woke mob thinks is appropriate – this is very scary.
“And so, you add to that concerns about other liberties. You add to that this debate where some say government knows what’s best for kids, versus moms and dads directing the upbringing of their children’s education.”
EU agrees on new digital rules to rein in Big Tech dominance
The European Union set the stage for a stepped-up crackdown on tech companies with an agreement on landmark digital rules to rein in online “gatekeepers” such as Google and Facebook parent Meta
EU agrees on new digital rules to rein in Big Tech dominanceBy KELVIN CHAN and SAM PETREQUINAssociated PressThe Associated PressBRUSSELS
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union set the stage for a stepped-up crackdown on big tech companies with an agreement on landmark digital rules to rein in online “gatekeepers” such as Google and Facebook parent Meta.
EU officials agreed late Thursday on wording for the bloc’s Digital Markets Act, part of a long-awaited overhaul of its digital rulebook. The act, which still needs other approvals, seeks to prevent tech giants from dominating digital markets, with the threat of whopping fines or even the possibility of a company breakup.
For instance, they face tighter restrictions on using people’s data for targeted online ads — a primary source of revenue for Google and Facebook — while different messaging services or social media platforms would be required to work together.
The new rules underscore how Europe has become a global pacesetter in efforts to curb the power of tech companies through an onslaught of antitrust investigations, stringent regulations on data privacy and proposed rules for areas like artificial intelligence.
“What we have been deciding about yesterday will start a new era in tech regulation,” the European Union’s lead lawmaker Andreas Schwab, said at a press conference Friday.
In its crackdown on tech giants, the EU also has another set of rules, the Digital Services Act, that aim to ensure online safety for users through stricter requirements to flag and remove harmful or illegal content or services like hate speech and counterfeit goods. Both are expected to take effect by October, EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager said.
The European Consumer Organisation, or BEUC, welcomed the agreement on the Digital Markets Act, saying it would help consumers by creating fairer and more competitive digital markets. Digital rights group EDRi said it will “narrow the power imbalance between people and online platforms.”
Tech companies were less enthusiastic.
Apple said it was concerned that parts of the Digital Markets Act “will create unnecessary privacy and security vulnerabilities for our users while others will prohibit us from charging for intellectual property in which we invest a great deal.”
Google said it will study the text and work with regulators to implement it.
“While we support many of the DMA’s ambitions around consumer choice and interoperability, we remain concerned that some of the rules could reduce innovation and the choice available to Europeans,” the company said.
Amazon said it is reviewing what the rules mean for its customers. Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, didn’t reply to a request for comment.
The Digital Markets Act includes a number of eye-catching, groundbreaking measures that could shake up the way big tech companies operate.
They wouldn’t be allowed to rank their own products or services higher than those of others in search results. That means Amazon, for example, wouldn’t be allowed to list its own brand of goods ahead of rival offerings from independent merchants.
Essential software or apps such as web browsers can’t be installed by default along with the operating system, in the same way Google’s Chrome comes bundled with Android phones. There’s also a measure aimed at loosening Apple’s stranglehold on iPhone apps through its App Store.
A user’s personal data also couldn’t be combined for targeted ads unless “explicit consent” is given. That would prevent Google from collecting information on YouTube viewing, online searches, travel history from Maps and Gmail conversations to build a profile to serve up personalized ads, unless users agree to each one.
Messaging services and social media platforms must work with each other to avoid the domination of a few companies that have already established big networks of users. That opens up the possibility, for example, of Telegram or Signal users being able to exchange messages with WhatsApp users.
Online services would have to ensure that users can opt out just as easily as they can sign up.
That’s “aimed at services where it’s super easy to sign up — boom, you’re a customer — but unsubscribe is hidden under three levels of menus,” such as Amazon Prime, said Jan Penfrat, senior policy adviser at EDRi. “They push it on to you with big, colorful buttons, but getting out of it is really difficult.”
Criteria for defining a gatekeeper under the rules have been tweaked to include companies that earn at least 7.5 billion euros ($8.3 billion) in annual revenue in Europe in the past three years, have a market value of 75 billion euros, provide services in at least three EU countries, and have 45 million users and 10,000 business users each year in the bloc.
Violations could be punished with whopping fines: up to 10% of a company’s annual income. Repeat offenders could be fined up to 20% of worldwide revenue, which could amount to billions of dollars for wealthy Silicon Valley companies.
Negotiators from the European Parliament and European Council, which represents the 27 EU member countries, reached the deal after months of talks. It now needs to be endorsed by the Council and the European Parliament.
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and Americans.
MICHAEL CUTLER
“Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America. Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States.Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within, every day, in virtually every community across this country.” JUDICIAL WATCH
THE INVASION SPONSORED BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
Congressional Democrats are apparently fine with catch-and-release policies because they see the likely electoral benefits. According to Customs and Border Protection (CPB), of the 94,285 Central American family units apprehended last year, 99 percent of them remain in the country today. CPB also reports that 98 percent of the 31,754 unaccompanied minors from the Northern Triangle of Central America remain in the country. CAL THOMAS
WHO WORKS HARDER FOR THE MEX DRUG CARTELS THAN JOE BIDEN??? “Joe Biden is great on immigration. I guess depends on your perspective. If you’re a human trafficker, or drug dealer, you’d give him an A-plus, but the American people would give him an F. The crisis at our border was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted. I predicted that if you campaign all year long on open borders, amnesty, and health care for illegals, you’re going to get more migrants at the border. That’s what’s happen SEN. TOM COTTON
Big Tech 'colluded with Democrats to censor' the Hunter Biden laptop story
The culture of power and money lust of the American Corporate Community and its major players — BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Bridgewater, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Twitter, and Musk — and, of course, Gates — that draws them to a plutocracy that would never hesitate to betray America for a financial advantage or an opportunity to be a part of a global powerhouse oligarchy complicit with and colluding with malefactor government tyrannies. (avarice, cupidity, and rapaciousness)
While he was at the CPAC conference late last month in Orlando, Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, was interviewed by RedState’s Brad Slager. Below is Slager’s writeup, followed by the video interview:
A revealing interview with an expert on radical Islam affairs about the shifting tide of acceptance and censorship, at CPAC 2022
CPAC is a great forum for bringing together conservative politicians, but what is less recognized is that it also serves to concentrate various voices at one location, so we can hear from those on the fringes of politics, not just Republican politicians and candidates. Author and lecturer Ray Ibrahim was in attendance and I was glad to get the chance to discuss some of the factors surrounding Islam and the impacts it is having in many countries, including the U.S.
While he has been featured on many media outlets Ibrahim is a well-known source for university lectures, particularly many defense-related schools, and has been an advisor to a number of governmental agencies. He has briefed U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and has testified before Congress on Islam-related issues and tactics.
Our discussion ran on the parallel topics of the evolving global recognition of the challenges from radical Islam’s infiltration into Western societies, and how that gradual cultural intrusion has led to a growing use of censoring tactics to silence exposure of these realities. It is something Ibrahim has experienced firsthand. He was on the receiving end of boisterous protests when he was slated to speak at the Naval War College.
We also covered how he has been targeted on social media with the familiar practice of having his content blocked and deflected from common searches – with one surprising anecdote of a private company preventing his website from being accessed by the public under spurious claims.
Google Settles NLRB Case with Employees Who Attempted to Unionize
Google has reportedly settled with six current and former employees who attempted to organize unionization efforts within the Masters of the Universe. The NLRB complaint alleged that Google illegally dismissed, disciplined, and even surveilled employees who were actively attempting to organize a tech worker’s union.
The New York Timesreports that tech giant Google has settled a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case filed by six current and former employees at the firm who claimed that the company had illegally fired or disciplined them over their unionization efforts.
Google’s main campus is seen as a sit-in to protest against Google’s retaliation against workers takes place within Google’s main cafeteria in Mountain View, California on May 1, 2019.(Photo credit should read AMY OSBORNE/AFP/Getty Images)
The employees have also agreed to dismiss a related California court case as part of the settlement. The settlement terms are bound by a nondisclosure agreement according to Laurie M. Burgess, a lawyer representing the former and current employees.
The settlement was finalized after a ruling in the NLRB case forced Google to provide more documentation. The complaint was initially brought forward in December 2020 and alleged that Google illegally dismissed, disciplined, or even surveilled employees who were actively attempting to organize a worker’s union.
Google claims that its actions were unrelated to efforts to combat unionization and that some of the employees breached security protocols. A Google spokesperson said that the company was “pleased for all sides to avoid years of legal proceedings,” adding: “we’ve always supported our employees’ right to speak about working conditions, and we stand by our policies that protect the security of our systems.”
Burgess, the employees’ lawyer, commented: “My clients moved that process of exposing the underbelly of what Google has been doing in terms of trying to quell union and organizing activities farther than anyone else.”
Documents revealed during the case related to Google’s hiring of IRI consultants, an agency well known for its anti-union work, showed that a Google lawyer wanted the consultants to help convince employees that “unions suck.” In January, a judge ordered Google to hand over further documents which Google withheld, stating that they were protected under attorney-client privilege.
Four of the employees who brought the case were dismissed and two others were disciplined. Only one remains at Google.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolanor contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment