As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary
swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on
and off like a tap, are the result of newspaper and radio [& now TV & the Net]
hypnosis.
- George Orwell
(author of Animal Farm & 1984)
Are Google, facebook, YouTube and Twitter trying to take
over popular thought? Now, certain
political views are censored, but what's next?
The definition of marriage, religious doctrine, alternative opinions on
controversial scientific issues (e.g. climate change) etc.
Journalistic bias is rampant and the "tek
giants" have a virtual monopoly on the internet-of-ideas (IOI). Mike Adams (NaturalNews.com, Censored.news, REAL.video)
has produced an explosive report documenting net censorship.
For example, here is a list of 55 serious errors, poor
journalism and fact-checking epic fails in media reporting just about President
Trump alone! This includes the recent Time magazine cover with the crying
Honduran child who was actually never
separated from her mother. Mainstream
media often calls the alternative media "fake news." But who defines the alleged
"fakeness" of alleged news?
To whom are the internet fact-checkers and moderators
accountable to (SPLC, SNOPES, Politifact)?
The establishment media is losing audience at a rapid rate. Is their only hope of survival crushing the
opposition of conservatives, non-PC voices, #MAGA hats, Christians, Libertarians
and so-called "haters" into silence?
Will the Drudge Report survive? According
to Mike Adams,
Maintaining monopoly control over cultural narratives is crucial for commanding primary influence over the worldview held by news consumers, whose beliefs, opinions and “realities” are largely shaped by the news to which they are subjected.
Is CNN, ABC and the like really just indoctrination and
propaganda? Do you think of YouTube as a
public utility? Adams has proposed a
number of solutions to Techno-Tyranny through legislative and regulatory actions
to halt the censorship of independent media (p. 53+). Remember James Damore, who was fired from
Google? Adams has nailed it in
describing the problem:
The highest priority of news monopolists is to silence independent, opposing voices that encourage individuals to “snap out” of their numbed, passive acquiescence to mainstream news narratives.
One perspective often ignored is that history, philosophy
and science definitely favor a young earth (TotalYouth.us). Have you ever heard of Steven Fielding, who was an Australian Senator from Victoria
and leader of the Family First Party? He
supports the young earth position.
Kip Hansen in an article last month, "GOOGLE and the
‘adjustment’ of inconvenient viewpoints, especially climate," points out
that net censorship may eventually target Edgar Allan Poe, Mark Twain and
Charles Darwin. Hansen also specifically
mentions that the young earth topic has a potential of being banned. He has studied a number of scientific
controversies where "... one side
seems to have an accepted consensus view but also has a vital and strong
contrarian view that is solidly scientifically supported."
An error I spotted in Adams' report is about the Flat Earth Myth (FEM) which is on page 28.
Let us all seek mutual understanding through a Worldview
of Wisdom (#WOW) by dealing with
opposing views via respectful dialog and debate. Feedback (pro or con) is most welcome: YoungEarthScience@yahoo.com
note: our blog in
May of this year also touched on free speech
No comments:
Post a Comment