Category Archives: Censorship

Advertising Industry Calls on Tech Giants to Censor ‘Hate’ and ‘Fake News’

The advertising industry wants to make the web family-friendly, and leftist pressure group Sleeping Giants-friendly too.

Unilever, one of the largest consumer products companies — not to mention the second largest advertiser in the world — has threatened Facebook and Google with a boycott if they do not take steps to curb “anger and hate” on their platforms, according to written remarks from Keith Weed, the company’s chief marketing officer.

“Unilever will not invest in platforms or environments that do not protect our children or which create division in society, and promote anger or hate,” Weed is expected to say, at today’s leadership meeting of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), a trade group for companies involved in digital advertising.

Share

Rapid response will be central to new French anti-fake news law

“The measures that we will be working on from now until March are to create a law about ‘confidence in information’ that will permit us to act very quickly when a fake news story goes viral, particularly during an election period,” said Nyssen in an interview with Journal du Dimanche on February 4.

I’m pretty sure we all know where this is leading.

Share

EU task force to clamp down on ‘fake news’, but can’t define it. Calls EU control stamp for news “an option”

Today, De Cock Buning was interviewed by Dutch newspaper NRC, and was asked: “Where is this headed? An EU control stamp for real and fake news?” She answered:

“That would be an option. But we’re not striving for something like a ministry of Truth. That’s certainly not the right direction.”

Share

Section 13 returns? Liberals consider letting Canadian Human Rights Commission censor the internet again

Do you remember Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

It was the censorship provision, that banned anything “likely to” expose a person to “hatred or contempt”.

That’s absurd — hatred and contempt are human emotions. You can’t legislate emotions.

Under Section 13, truth was no defence. “Fair comment” was no defence.

Share

Google’s New Fact-Check Feature Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites

Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results.
No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.

And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”


Google is an insane asylum run by SJW fanatics. I do not say this lightly, read James Damore’s statement of claim and you’ll see why. It is time for these monsters to be reigned in.

Damore Statement of Claim

Share

‘Hate speech is not free speech,’ insist college presidents

A group representing 23 institutions of higher learning in San Antonio penned an open letter earlier this month declaring that “hate speech” and “inappropriate messages” are not legitimate forms of free speech.

The signatories assert that such forms of expression “are not welcome or accepted” on their campuses, but other public universities have conceded that the Constitution prohibits censorship of offensive speech.

Share

Who’s Really Censoring the Web?

Net neutrality advocates have it backwards.

Major Silicon Valley companies and their supporters are outraged that the FCC is poised to repeal the Obama administration’s so-called net neutrality regulations—but if anyone should be subject to regulation in the name of preserving a free Internet, it’s them. As FCC chairman Ajit Pai put it, Silicon Valley social-media giants like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube “are a much bigger actual threat to an open Internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint.”

Share

British public would accept three-minute social media delay to tackle extremist content

In an extensive survey on the future of technology, Demos asked their 2,003 respondents how long of a delay – if any -they would be prepared to put up with between pressing “send” and their post appearing online if it meant technology companies such as Twitter and Facebook were able to better police the content uploaded to their sites.

Share