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