Twitter Files Part 2: Top Twitter execs interfered with US election before banning Donald Trump  msnNOW

More here:

Twitter Files Part 2: Top Twitter execs interfered with US election before banning Donald Trump - msnNOW

Conservatives are defending rapper Kanye West in the wake of the artist posting multiple antisemitic statement over the weekend including that he was going to go death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE resulting in a restriction of his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

Following the rebukes, right-wing commentators jumped at the opportunity to rail against the media and platforms enforcing content standards, rather than criticizing Wests antisemitism. The constant hypocrisy from the media is at an all-time high, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rioka tweeted on Sunday. They have now gone after Kanye for his new fashion line, his independent thinking, & for having opposing thoughts from the norm of Hollywood.

Rioka responded to backlash by claiming he was specifically addressing Wests criticism of the media and that he is 100% supportive of the Jewish community and Israel.

Wests comments followed a contentious week for the artist. He was lambasted by fans and industry names after displaying White Lives Matter shirts at his Paris Fashion Week Yeezy show. He then sat down with Fox News host Tucker Carlson for a two-part interview, and took to social media to bash friends and artists who had reached out to him to express their discomfort with the Fashion Week stunt. In one text exchange posted to Instagram, West told fellow rapper Diddy that he would show the Jews that told you to call me that no one can threaten or influence me. Instagrams parent company Meta issued a 24-hour suspension as a result.

West also posted to Twitter for the first time since 2020, attacking Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerburg for the ban before posting his plan to attack JEWISH PEOPLE late Saturday night. The funny thing is I actually cant be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew also, West wrote.

Tesla billionaire Elon Musk, who is currently embroiled in a litigious battle over his attempt to buy Twitter, had on Friday congratulated West on his return to the platform. Musk has promised to drastically roll back content moderation policies should his bid to acquire the social media platform be finalized.Editors picks

Rioka was one of several conservatives to bash the media and social media companies following Wests comments. On Fox News, the hosts of Fox & Friends Sunday argued that while Wests remarks were ugly, removing them from public debate through censorship wouldnt actually do anything to curb the spread of antisemitism. Is censorship and silence the appropriate reaction to actually accomplish the goal of a world with less racism and antisemitism? wondered host Will Cain.

Ironically, some readers appear to have had their comments on articles about Wests antisemitic posts removed from the Fox News website for violating the content policy of the site.

Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Rolling Stone.

Others highlighted the bans over the antisemitic remarks that prompted them, characterizing Wests punishment as retaliation for his conservative opinions. Terrible, right-wing conspiracy theorist and documentarian Dinseh DSouza wrote of West being banned for Twitter for saying he was going to go after the Jews. Twitter dropped the hammer on the famed Trump supporter, added former Trump White House minion Sebastian Gorka. Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich dismissed Wests comment as meta-commentary that lacked delicate hands and said critics of the rapper were motivated by hate.

Jason Whitlock of The Blaze tweeted that Black rappers and comedians are free to denigrate black people and white men a million different ways and that theres a line they better not cross. And everybody knows it.Related

When asked what the line is, Whitlock wrote that its questioning black entertainers unhealthy relationship with non-religious Jewish power brokers in HollywoodTrending

Whitlocks former Blaze colleague Elijah Schaffer, who was recently fired from the company after reports that he sexually harrassed a coworker, wrote that removing posts like Kanyes removes healthy public debate as if a call to go death con three on Jewish people is something that merits serious consideration.

The American Jewish Committee doesnt agree. Kanye West has had a streak of rants this week that is remarkable even by his standards, it said in a statement. If he wants to have any credibility as a commentator on social issues, let alone as a musician, maybe he can start by figuring out how to make a point without fomenting hatred of Jews.

Original post:

Conservatives Are Mad Kanye Is Being Censored for Antisemitism ...

Putins Lack of a Grand Strategy

by Srdja Trifkovic

Vladimir Putin lacks the kind of grand vision and decisive temperament needed to make Russia a highly respected world power in the current global environment.

by Roger D. McGrath

California has been living off its legacy of water projects for the last several decades like a lazy, self-indulgent, trust-fund recipient.

by Edward Welsch

Just as a conquering army defaces the monuments of its defeated foes, Americas woke film industry has seized the opportunity in Rings of Power to have its way with the mythology of Tolkien's Men of the West.

by Jack Trotter

In her unguarded moments, South Carolina politician Krystle Mathews provided a glimpse into the philosophy and methods of racial intimidation used by some blacks to gain and maintain political power.

by Stanley G. Payne

One of the last great leftist myths of the 20th century is that the Spanish Civil War was a struggle of republican democracy against nationalist fascism. In reality, it was a violent mass-collectivist revolution put down by Spanish moderates and conservatives.

by Daniel McCarthy

Michael Oakeshott warned that rationalism in politics leads to rigid, rule-bound governance, and to the imposition of the state's enterprise over and against the free association of individuals.

by Stephen B. Presser

Gordon Wood shows how far we have drifted from the Founding Fathers' vision of a polity that would limit arbitrary power in order that the government might serve the people rather than tyrannize them.

Follow this link:

Chronicles Magazine : A Magazine of American Culture

The recent politically-tinted PayPal trouble in the UK does not seem to have died the same ignoble and (un)deserved in nature, anonymous death as so many cases over the recent years have when Big Tech and their subsidiaries/minions have been called to task, as essentially the agents to stifle whatever speech went against the Big Narrative.

The no reaction to accounts getting blocked for legitimate political reasons would have been happening due to, quite simply put, politics.

So is it okay to cancel a person’s PayPal account on account of their political stance in a democracy?

As far as UK legislators, it now looks like this conundrum seems to be getting close to a solution.

At the moment, there seems to be some positive political climate change in the UK at least, and adhering to the very bottom of the democratic low bar of free speech it would mean that it is not okay to simply cut off people from international payment systems, just because of their political stance.

In the UK, some questions about how this whole system of manufactured consent works started appearing a while back, not least when the Daily Sceptic, the Free Speech Union, and associated individual accounts started getting hit with the censorship hammer for things that just can no longer be discussed in a democracy (like Covid vaccines, Ukraine war, or any other kind of established by nature of corporate media narrative.)

It’s not all bad news, though MP Sally Ann Hart has put forward a Financial Services and Markets Bill amendment that would, if passed, allow UK-based customers to still use the PayPal system, even if the company dislikes it.

We obtained a copy of the amendment proposals for you here.

It’s included in the House of Commons NC15 point of the document to deal with refusal to provide services for reasons connected to (anti) freedom of expression.

The long and the short of the proposal is this:

No payment service provider providing a relevant service may refuse to supply that service to any other person in the United Kingdom if the reason for the refusal is significantly related to the customer exercising his or her right to freedom of expression.

Link:

PayPal's ideological deplatforming spurs proposed UK amendment to stop ...

Author Ryan T. Anderson said his book, "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment," has been removed from Amazon and critics pointed out that the online retailer has a history of censoring books that dont coincide with the companys liberal political views.

"I hope youve already bought your copy, cause Amazon just removed my book "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment" from their cyber shelves.... my other four books are still available (for now)," Anderson tweeted.

ALEX BERENSON'S CORONAVIRUS BOOKLET HITS AMAZON AFTER ELON MUSK, OTHERS CALL OUT ONLINE RETAILER FOR 'CENSORSHIP'

"When Harry Became Sally," which has previously been on Amazons bestseller list, aimed to provide "thoughtful answers to questions arising from our transgender moment" and offered a "a balanced approach to public policy on gender identity, and a sober assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong."

Author Ryan T. Anderson said his book, "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment," has been removed from Amazon. (Reuters)

A search of Amazon for "When Harry Became Sally" on Monday doesnt find Andersons book, instead suggesting books with the opposite view such as "The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society," "Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture" and "Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment."

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"While you cant buy the book on Amazon, you can still get it (for now?) at Barnes and Noble. Given the aggressive push on trans policies coming from the Biden admin, now is a great time to read it. Buy it before you no longer can," Anderson added in a follow-up tweet.

Dispatch writer David French blasted the move as "absurd and unacceptable," while New York Times columnist Ross Douthatsuggested Amazon was "conducting an experiment in what they can get away with."

ATTEMPT TO CENSOR BOOK ON TRANSGENDER CRAZE BACKFIRED, CRITICS SAY: THIS IS THE SO-CALLED STREISAND EFFECT

Target also sparked an outcry amongcritics last year when the big box retailer announced it was pulling "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,"because oneTwitteruser deemed the book transphobic. Target reversed its decision amidbacklash.

Many others took to Twitter with their thoughts on the situation:

Last year,Alex Berensonsbooklet on coronavirus, "Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 1," became the No. 1 best seller inAmazons Kindle Storeafter the online retailer initially told Berenson it didnt meet the companys guidelines.

The former New York Times reporter quickly launched a protest on Twitter, calling the move "outrageous censorship from a company that gained hugely from lockdown" as millions wereforced to shop online. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and other prominent journalists defended Berenson, and Amazon eventually allowed the book to be sold on its platform.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Amazon told Fox News it was an "error" and the book shouldnt have been held up, but Berenson had his doubts.

"They didnt say to me that it was a mistake I do believe that Im not the only person who has run into this. They need to be clear what their position is on publishing controversial material on political issues," Berenson told Fox News at the time. "It doesnt seem to me that this was an error, but I dont know."

Brian Flood is a media reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent tobrian.flood@fox.comand on Twitter: @briansflood.

See the original post here:

Amazon accused of absurd and unacceptable censorship after book ...

Dexerto

Published: 2022-10-07T17:17:03

Updated: 2022-10-07T17:17:24

Its been almost two months since controversial influencer Andrew Tate was banned from all major social media platforms, and the numbers reflect his overall popularity has taken a drastic downturn.

On August 19, 2022, Hustlers University founder and TateSpeech co-host Andrew Tate received a ban from Meta, removing his presence from both Instagram and Facebook. This followed a ban from Twitter years prior.

In the days that followed, Tate would also receive a ban from YouTube and TikTok, followed by a self-removal of his TateSpeech channel from Twitch. Despite being one of the most significant instances of deplatforming weve seen in recent history, Tate would let the world know via his new social platforms that he didnt feel canceled.

But despite how the crypto trading mogul may feel, the numbers reflect a drastic dip in popularity. Once boasting the title of the most searched man on the internet, his relevance has seen a steep decline as his popularity diminishes.

Tates popularity peaked between August 21 and 27 in the middle of his deplatforming with the former kickboxer making headlines across the internet. But it wouldnt take long before Andrew Tates search volume would drop by 60%, with his name being searched fewer and fewer times each day.

But his decline in popularity goes beyond Googles search metrics. Hes no longer making frequent guest appearances on podcasts, hes not been on Twitch since he removed his channel, and TikTok where he garnered most of his followers via fan accounts has stopped exposing its users to his content.

Outside of mainstream social media, Tates newfound homes on free speech platforms Rumble and Gettr have seen a fraction of the traction his Instagram, Twitch streams, and YouTube videos once received.

For reference, Andrew Tate posts a video on his TateSpeech Rumble channel at least once every two days. However, outside of his Emergency Meeting podcast episodes, these videos rarely break 100k views. But during his last day on YouTube, it wasnt uncommon for the TateSpeech YouTube channel to get several hundreds of thousands of views in a single day.

However, TateSpeech on Rumble has just 100k fewer subscribers than his YouTube channel had, showing that while the majority of his fans may have followed him over to Rumble not nearly as many of them are consuming his content.

There has been a lot of pushback from larger personalities on the internet when it comes to deplatforming. Some free speech advocates are completely against the idea of banning someone from major sites, while others believe deplatforming doesnt even work because that persons ideas are still present on the internet. Yet, if statistics are anything to go by, it seems as if deplatforming Andrew Tate has caused a major blow to his relevance.

The rest is here:

Andrew Tates popularity decreases following deplatforming from social ...

Man I gotchu this once for the sake of a solid discourse. Here are some research papers showcasing that de-platforming does in fact work as a net negative for the content creator.

Klinenberg, Danny, Does Deplatforming Work? Unintended Consequences of banning far-right content creators from social media (January 27, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4019767 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4019767

Abstract from the paper:

" Social media has become an outlet for extremists to fundraise and organize on, potentially leading to deadly externalities. While governments deliberate on how to regulate this challenge, some social media companies have removed creators of offensive content deplatforming. I estimate the effects of deplatforming on revenue and viewership, using variation in the timing of removals across two video-streaming companies- YouTube, and its far-right competitor, Bitchute. I construct a novel dataset including Bitcoin wallets linking YouTube and Bitchute accounts for 79 far-right content creators, including propagandists for violent domestic extremist movements. Being deplatformed on Youtube results in a 30% increase in weekly Bitcoin revenue and a 50% increase in viewership on Bitchute. This increase in Bitchute activity accounts for about 65% of the estimated foregone revenue and 5.9% of viewership lost from YouTube, implying a negative net effect of deplatforming."

Rauchfleisch, Adrian and Kaiser, Jonas and Kaiser, Jonas, Deplatforming the Far-right: An Analysis of YouTube and BitChute (June 15, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3867818 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3867818

Abtract from the paper:

" The content moderation practice of deplatforming, i.e. the removal of undesired actors, has become common on social media platforms such as YouTube. Little research has gone into understanding the scope and impact of deplatforming. In our study, we are particularly interested in the deplatforming of far-right channels to understand the impact deplatforming has on them. To do so, we analyze two datasets: We check whether 11,198 YouTube channels have been removed in 22 months between 2018 and 2019 and for what reason. We then focus on the far-right and check whether the deplatformed far-right channels have found a new home on the alternative video platform BitChute. Our analysis shows that deplatforming is effective in minimizing the reach of disinformation and extreme speech, as alternative platforms that will allow this kind of content cannot mitigate the negative effect of being deplatformed on YouTube"

See the rest here:

This is for people who think deplatforming doesn't work

Goodbyes are never easy. If youre leaving your current role you will undoubtedly have to go through lots of longwinded farewells.Before you send those hotly anticipated bon voyage emails you might want to read some of our templates first.Afterall, you want to leave a good lasting impression.For your clients

The first email you send should be to your clients. This email should be short and sweet.

Dear [name],

I wanted to drop you an email to let you know that I have some news. I will be leaving my position as [job title] at [company name] on [date].

I have really enjoyed working with you during my time here and I wish you all the best for the future.

If there is anything you would like me to take a look at before I leave please do not hesitate to contact me. Your new point of contact will be [colleagues name] and they will be reaching out to you shortly.

All the best,

[your name]

Its a good idea to send your supervisor or manager a personalised email. Thank them for their help and wish them well. You never know when you might need a reference.

Hi [name]

Before I finish up today I wanted to take the opportunity to drop you a quick email to say thank you.

You have been a massive support to me during my time at [company name] and I really appreciate all your help and advice over the last [period of time youve worked together].

As I move on from [company name] I would love to stay in touch. You can find my personal email address and phone number at the bottom of this email.

All the best,

[your name].

This message will go to everyone on the office email list. Make it short, to the point and polite. Try to include a few anecdotes or funny stories too. Life is too short for boring all staff emails.

Dear [nickname for coworkers]

As most of you already know today will be my last day at [company name]. Leaving this [great/wonderful] company behind has been a very difficult decision to make.

During my [number] years at [company name], I have learned a lot. From starting out as a [first position at company] to my later years in [recent position] I have grown up a lot and met some incredible people along the way.

I will be starting a new chapter at [new company name] in a few short weeks. While Im excited about this new adventure I also cant wait to see all the amazing things that you will all accomplish here at [company name].

This isnt goodbye, more of a see you later(except for you [colleague name] I never want to see you again).

My contact information is below if anyone wants to stay in touch and I will see you all for a few drinks after work.

The first round is on [colleagues name].

Best,

[your name].

This is an email that you can send to someone that you consider a friend as well as a coworker. Someone that youve spent multiple lunches with and someone you can confide in when things go wrong. Theyre your work bestie and theydeserve an email all of their own.

[Colleagues name],

As you know, I will be finishing up my time at [company name] on [date].

I just wanted to take this moment to thank you for everything that you have done for me during my time here. From your never-ending support to the millions of cups of coffee you have brought to my desk.

You made me look forward to coming into the office each morning and I will never forget the time you [anecdote].

While Im excited aboutthis new adventure, I am sad to be leaving [company name] and my amazing coworkers.

Its been a pleasure working with you and please dont be a stranger.

All the best,

[your name]

Read more:

4 Great Email Templates For Leaving Your Job - Jobbio Journal

What is social media?

Social media is a collective term for websites and applications that focus on communication, community-based input, interaction, content-sharing and collaboration.

People use social media to stay in touch and interact with friends, family and various communities. Businesses use social applications to market and promote their products and track customer concerns.

Business-to-consumer websites include social components, such as comment fields for users. Various tools help businesses track, measure and analyze the attention the company gets from social media, including brand perception and customer insight.

Social media has enormous traction globally. Mobile applications make these platforms easily accessible. Some popular examples of general social media platforms include Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

In business, social media is used to market products, promote brands, connect to customers and foster new business. As a communication platform, social media promotes customer feedback and makes it easy for customers to share their experiences with a company. Businesses can respond quickly to positive and negative feedback, address customer problems and maintain or rebuild customer confidence.

Social media is also used for crowdsourcing. That's the practice of using social networking to gather knowledge, goods or services. Companies use crowdsourcing to get ideas from employees, customers and the general public for improving products or developing future products or services.

Examples of business to business (B2B) applications include the following:

Social media provides several benefits, including the following:

Social media can also pose challenges to individual users, in the following ways:

Businesses face similar and unique social media challenges.

It is important for companies to have a social media strategy and establish social media goals. These help to build trust, educate their target audience and create brand awareness. They also enable real people to find and learn about a business.

Here are some social media social media best practices for companies to follow:

The four main categories of social platforms are these:

Here are some examples of popular web-based social media platforms:

Social media is everywhere. Individuals and businesses of all sizes and types use it. It's a critical resource for engaging with customers, getting customer feedback and expanding company visibility.

An effective social strategy can enhance an organization's reputation and build trust and awareness among a growing network of connections. While some are more tailored to B2B promotion, no platforms are off limits.

Read this article:

What is Social Media? - TechTarget

The first time I saw an Andrew Tate video (and Ill be honest), I kinda laughed. Not because my thought process was, haha women r stupid, but because I thought he was playing a character. He was so over the top, I thought it must be ironic. Over the next few months, I watched in horror as self-proclaimed sigma males fawned over every word from his mouth. We all know how this story ends: Tate got clapped off the internet. He was deplatformed and we all rejoiced.

In the aftermath, Tate lunged at the scraps of attention leftover from his moment in the spotlight. It was clear I would never see his face again, outside of some niche and postmodern meme slideshows. Yet his impact never quite faded new men picked up with misogyny right where he left off. I looked for something to blame for those months. I felt like kicking Tate off the internet meant wed solved misogyny, and then I found it.

Deplatforming can be dangerous, even when we do it to people who deserve it, like Andrew Tate. It runs three risks: it restrains potential solvency for online hate, it could be weaponized against non-agitators if they garner public chagrin, and it concentrates hateful discourse into spaces where it can fester and become worse.

Let me start by saying that deplatforming does an excellent job at getting hateful language out of spaces with high online traffic. However, it is important that we recognize that deplatforming only lowers the visibility of content we dont like and often does not do more than that. It takes one user off of at least one platform, not prevents that user from finding other ways to spread hate. Deplatforming is not an effective solution for hatred because it does not address its ideological roots, focusing instead on cleaning up a platforms political aesthetic.

Thats all a wordy way of saying that while deplatforming does make sure that we dont have to see the ugliness of hatred very often, it is not the Swiss Army knife of ending phobia despite its situational effectiveness. Deplatforming works sometimes, but the consequences are scary.

That being said, Ill try to prove myself by presenting my worst argument first. When we rush to deplatform, we focus on getting bad content out of our faces and feeds. Secondary to this, we consider what sort of impact deplatforming has on the world and whether it is an appropriate solution to what we really need to address: the ideologies that encourage aggressive rhetoric. White supremacy, patriarchal norms and a whole bunch of other buzzwords persist despite their mouthpiece being deplatformed. It may be easy to confuse deplatforming as a win against any of the aforementioned issues because we incorrectly identify agitators like Andrew Tate as the entire problem rather than a representative of a harmful ideology. Simply put, we are giving those idiots way too much credit; you can just ignore them and theyll go away.

That is the entire nature of this game all of the points that people like Andrew Tate make are not new. There has been an Andrew Tate of every single generation, making being misogynistic look cool to a whole generation of impressionable boys. Deplatforming is a solution that does not solve the problem we should be mad at but tucks harmful ideology away until someone new comes around. Therefore, when we leap to it, we stop ourselves from seeking other solutions that may better address phobia.

This feels like an appropriate time to point out that the idea of getting canceled and deplatforming is an almost uniquely American phenomenon. Theres a reason why companies such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook dedicate most of their content screening efforts to our servers. The reason why they do that is simple: profit. They primarily filter our content because we fuss the most about things such that our outcry is unprofitable for them. The only thing that matters during this outcry is its severity, not which group is being loud. The reason I highlight this as a concern is because the right-wing niche is growing in this country, whether we like it or not. Ill keep this point short and sweet: Deplatforming can become anti-progressive very fast if political will changes.

Finally, lets take a look at the aftermath of deplatforming. Like I said at the beginning of my tirade, there is nothing more to deplatforming than just getting something you dont like out of your face. In this instance, what you dont like is hateful speech and your face is your feed. So where does this speech go when its not in your face? It finds a new face. The analogy got weird at the end, but my point is that theres always a place online that accepts hate. When its not on YouTube, its on Reddit. However, in those lower visibility spaces, the alt-right decentralizes and the things they say become more concentrated. When theres no pushback, the radicalization has no floor. In those spaces, though we cannot see it, the alt-right continues to grow. Thats why even after we get rid of Andrew Tate, people continue believing in the same things he does. Worse still, deplatforming makes it so that those same propaganda-vulnerable people are fed even more poison.

With all that being said, I still believe that deplatforming has its place. Given Ye (aka Kanye West)s recent statements, I had to reconcile with the fact that my favorite artist is morally horrible now. I think hes said enough; we can deplatform him. However, we should deplatform with the understanding that we are not solving any problems, we are just making our feeds match a political aesthetic that media companies profit from. In both Yes and Tates case, the ban was warranted, but its important that we recognize the underlying ideologies that they represent and fight those with more rigor. We should not let an itch to deplatform distract us from that.

See the rest here:

The dangers of deplatforming