moonbattery logo

Aug 19 2017

A Jewish Voice Explains Why Internet Companies Are a Lot Scarier Than Modern Nazis

Bryan Lunduke demonstrates that you don’t have to like the Daily Stormer even the least bit to understand that if it can be silenced, anyone can:

Google, GoDaddy, Facebook, and the rest of the liberal Internet establishment are a vastly more serious threat to the American way than a handful of screwballs who revere Adolf Hitler.

The campaign to eradicate Confederate memorials quickly spread, so that all memorials are in danger, even those of the Founding Fathers. Likewise, the Daily Stormer will not be the last website to fail to comply with the ideology that prevails in Silicon Valley.

Internet companies aren’t run by people of Voltaire’s caliber.

On a tip from Physicsnut.

19 Responses to “A Jewish Voice Explains Why Internet Companies Are a Lot Scarier Than Modern Nazis”

  1. Richard Daniels says:

    “…And will defend my right not to have to listen to you.”

    The left never seems to be able to stop repeating the same talking points. Apparently under the assumption that if a talking point is shouted loud enough and often enough it becomes reality.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Ah, their idea of “socially constructed” reality…

  3. Anonymous says:

    And the CloudFlare CEO wants to “have a discussion” about it (to look virtuous) but still wants to control Internet content anyway…

  4. StephaneDumas says:

    And for one of the rare times, vlogger MundaneMatt posted a vlog on the subject.

    VoxDay also posted a post about the DailyStormer and some unintended consequences.

  5. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    Dave must see the sign posts leading to his door too.

    We just are not safe in this Land of the Free anymore

  6. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    Or kill enough of the “right” ones…

  7. RKae says:

    Of course, with enough technology thrown at the problem, we can soon make it so that Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say and I will defend to the death my right to stop you from saying it!”

    A combination of trusting A.I. (and the people who program it) and the notion of digitizing everything (leaving nothing in hard copy), mingled with a recently-growing notion that “We should change old things to suit the times”/”History is fluid!” – that’ll fix the whole thing.

    Oh! And how could I forget? “Everything I don’t like is now classified as HATE! And hate is illegal.” That’s a big piece of the puzzle!

  8. RKae says:

    They’re always another million murders away from utopia!

    It’s so tantalizingly close!

  9. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    That is why they can’t take chances. There is no price too high to pay in Christian blood to reach Utopia Comrade!

  10. geeknerd says:

    Holy Martin Niemoller, Batman!

    First they came for the neo-Nazis, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a neo-Nazi.
    Then they came for the Confederate flag wavers, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Confederate flag waver.
    Then they came for the Alt-Right, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not Alt-Right.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

  11. physicsnut says:

    a followup
    // SJW TYPES CENSORING CONSERVATIVES >>> you MUST READ THIS <<>>> nice website you’ve got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it. <<<<

    QUOTE …
    On the surface, this looks rather innocuous. It's presented by Google as an attempt to create a database of hate crimes — information that should be available with a quick Google search, it should be noted. But a quick glance at the list of partners for this project should raise some red flags:

    The ProPublica-led coalition includes The Google News Lab, Univision News, the New York Times, WNYC, BuzzFeed News, First Draft, Meedan, New America Media, The Root, Latino USA, The Advocate, 100 Days in Appalachia and Ushahidi. The coalition is also working with civil-rights groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and schools such as the University of Miami School of Communications.
    ProPublica poses as a middle-of-the-road non-profit journalistic operation, but in reality, it's funded by a stable of uber-liberal donors, including George Soros's Open Society Foundations and Herb and Marion Sandler, billionaire former mortgage bankers whose Golden West Financial Corp. allegedly targeted subprime borrowers with "pick-a-pay" mortgages that led to toxic assets that were blamed for the collapse of Wachovia. The Southern Poverty Law Center, of course, is infamous for targeting legitimate conservatives groups, branding them as "hate groups" because they refuse to walk in lockstep with the progressive agenda. And it goes with out saying that The New York Times and BuzzFeed News lean left.

    A perusal of the raw data that's been compiled thus far on hate stories shows articles from a wide array of center-right sites, including The Daily Caller, Breitbart News, The Washington Times, National Review, and the Washington Examiner. It also includes many articles from liberal sites like BuzzFeed News and The New York Times. One story from PJ Media's Bridget Johnson is included in the list. It's a report about a Sikh ad campaign aimed at reducing hate crimes against members of their faith community. Many of the articles are simply reports about alleged hate crimes from sources running the gamut of the political spectrum.

    Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer along with some others received this from ProPublica "reporter" Lauren Kirchner:

    I am a reporter at ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in New York. I am contacting you to let you know that we are including your website in a list of sites that have been designated as hate or extremist by the American Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. We have identified all the tech platforms that are supporting websites on the ADL and SPLC lists.
    We would like to ask you a few questions:

    1) Do you disagree with the designation of your website as hate or extremist? Why?

    2) We identified several tech companies on your website: PayPal, Amazon, Newsmax, and Revcontent. Can you confirm that you receive funds from your relationship with those tech companies? How would the loss of those funds affect your operations, and how would you be able to replace them?

    3) Have you been shut down by other tech companies for being an alleged hate or extremist web site? Which companies?

    4) Many people opposed to sites like yours are currently pressuring tech companies to cease their relationships with them – what is your view of this campaign? Why?

    In other words, nice website you've got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

    To summarize: Liberal ProPublica, working with the smear merchants at SPLC — powered by Google — sent a reporter out to issue not so veiled threats against conservative websites. It's blatantly obvious that the goal here is to tank websites they disagree with by mounting a campaign to pressure their advertisers and tech providers to drop them as clients. This comes on the heels of Google, GoDaddy, CloudFlare, Apple, and others singling out alt-right sites for destruction in the wake of the Charlottesville riots.


  12. physicsnut says:

    back in the sixties i was in the IWW and we KNEW there were AGENT PROVOCATEURS
    who infiltrated, and were pushing us to do stupid sh!t
    It looks to me like Kessler is not what he makes himself out to be
    and a lot of young people ARE FALLING FOR IT

    YouTube has also rolled out a “trusted flagger” program,
    in which 15 “expert NGOs and institutions” to help them
    identify hate speech and extremism on their platform.

    Among these organizations are the No Hate Speech Movement,
    a left-wing project pushed by the Council of Europe,
    as well as the Anti-Defamation League, an organization
    whose president has been accused of “manufacturing outrage”
    by the World Jewish Congress.

    YouTube is also planning to artificially alter its search results
    so that searches for “sensitive” topics on YouTube no longer return
    the most popular videos, but a “playlist of curated YouTube videos
    that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.”

    The platform also plans to artificially promote videos created
    via its “Creators for Change” program, which, in YouTube’s words,
    features creators who are “using their voices and creativity to
    speak out against hate speech, xenophobia and extremism.”

    We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method
    to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube,
    they will be redirected towards a playlist of
    curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent
    extremist messages. We also continue to amplify YouTube voices
    speaking out against hate and radicalization through our
    YouTube Creators for Change program.

    funny – TheHILL does not report on this – or AWAN bros
    funny – alternet, SALON, ThinkProgress do not report on
    the censors – ever wonder why ?

  13. Frank says:

    The best way to handle offensive speech and ideas is to ignore them. Extinguishing behavior works on 2-year olds pulling tantrums as well as loudmouthed idiots of a large growth.

  14. John27 says:

    They’re banning The Daily Stormer at first, but that’s just to get their foot in the door. You know how the left operates. It’s only a matter of time before they move on to their next targets and ban Moonbattery, Weazel Zippers, Breitbart et al.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy