That didn't stop Democrats and the media from acting as though literal Nazis drove Panzer tanks down 5th Avenue

'Publicly support Black Lives Matter and defund the police'

Although some movies and media depict ancient people as unclean, that's not entirely accurate. The ancients had hygiene practices, especially one of the most advanced civilizations, the Greeks. Despite not having showers, the Greeks learned how to stay clean with that they had. Ancient Greeks had hair dye, perfume, and flushing latrines. However, their ingredients, recipes... Source

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Democrats have come up with a fresh avenue to put pressure on social platforms in the name of combating “misinformation” – in this instance related to hurricanes Helene and Milton that recently hit North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. Seven Congress members have written to several House committees – Judiciary, Oversight, and Energy and Commerce – asking that they investigate and organize hearings into the matter. We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. According to the signatories, what needs to be investigated at this level is the role of social sites “in the dissemination of misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and scams in the wake of natural disasters.” The platforms where this was allegedly happening to the extent of hindering rescue and recovery efforts named in the letter include X, Meta (Instagram and Facebook), TikTok, and Discord. “The severity of this issue is difficult to overstate,” write the Democrat lawmakers – and yet, the very dramatic tone of the letter suggests that it may indeed not be “difficult to overstate.” Either way, the missive goes into a number of examples of problems that are known to affect disaster area relief efforts, but this time, the members of the Senate choose to tie them tightly to the “role” of social media. Clearly, the intent here is to push for “adequate solutions.” These just happen to parrot the many times repeated criticism and demands coming from the same political corner, that seem to have become a “one-size-fits-all” tool to pressure for more censorship. The investigation demand includes looking into the alleged failure of social media to adequately address misinformation, the role of algorithms, specifically when “amplifying” what it designated as misinformation and scams, as well as the impact on public trust and disaster recovery of “misinformation.” Another point these lawmakers want investigated is what they see as failures to protect against scams and fraud – which they claim have not only proliferated on the named platforms but have also “targeted individuals at their most vulnerable, exacerbating the financial and emotional toll of the hurricanes.” Related: Democrat Congresswomen Tell Social Media Platforms to “Quickly and Decisively” Censor Hurricane “Misinformation” Just as one might be tempted to observe that this level of interest has never been afforded to the way censorship worked during the pandemic, election controversies, etc, these last years, by representatives of this political option – the letter goes into that, but not to, like, say, Mark Zuckerberg, repent and apologize. Quite the opposite. Write the lawmakers and dig in their heels: “The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s bipartisan investigation into misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic raised critical questions about the role of algorithms and ineffective content moderation on platforms such as Facebook and YouTube.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Democrats Target Social Media Over Hurricane “Misinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. As Congress turns its attention to Big Tech and its role in censoring online speech, concerns about the influence of government in shaping digital discourse are front and center. Lawmakers are probing the boundaries of government involvement in content moderation and questioning whether federal agencies have quietly steered private companies toward censorship. For an increasing number of lawmakers, it’s time to take a closer look at how far government influence over private platforms may extend—and what that means for free speech. In a two-day blitz, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer opened inquiries on a critical front: How much influence has the government had over private tech companies’ content policies, and has that influence veered into outright censorship? On Thursday, Schmitt directed a line of questioning at Google, Meta, and TikTok, urging them to reveal if they’d been pressured into suppressing certain discussions, particularly around election integrity. We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. Then Comer’s committee trained its sights on NewsGuard, the taxpayer-funded “news-rating” service accused of favoring certain ideological viewpoints over others. Comer’s request was for any evidence of any cozy partnerships with government agencies and a breakdown of how NewsGuard decides what qualifies as “trusted” information. NewsGuard: The Taxpayer-Funded “Truth” Filter for America’s Young Minds NewsGuard, in theory, is supposed to act like a digital “nutrition label,” providing a way for users to discern reliable news from questionable sources. Yet critics argue that, in practice, NewsGuard’s role often seems more like that of an ideological filter. Chairman Comer pointed out that this taxpayer-funded organization seems remarkably consistent in giving conservative viewpoints a red warning light. With over 500 government grants dished out since 2016 to combat “misinformation,” many are questioning just how neutral NewsGuard’s approach can be. Comer’s concerns cut to the core: Why are we funneling taxpayer dollars into a service that may be one-sided in its approach to “misinformation?” And does the government’s role in NewsGuard’s funding make it a quiet backdoor for influencing public dialogue? With a deadline ticking on NewsGuard’s response, Comer’s line of questioning shines a light on what many see as a crucial issue for American free speech. Censorship by Proxy? Evidence Piles Up in Twitter Files and Murthy v. Missouri Evidence backing this scrutiny isn’t in short supply. The now-famous Twitter Files project, for one, provided a look into conversations between Twitter execs and federal agencies, suggesting a concerted effort to “manage” online discussions. Lawmakers say it’s an example of how government agencies, with just a few nudges here and there, effectively shape what’s allowed on platforms used by millions. In Murthy v. Missouri, the question of where “guidance” ends and outright censorship begins is set to test the boundaries of the First Amendment in court. Schmitt and Comer’s investigation hinges on the unsettling idea that, by enlisting private tech giants in its fight against “misinformation,” the government has managed to sidestep restrictions on censorship. When Big Tech steps in to mute discussions under government pressure, is it really a private decision anymore? If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Lawmakers Demand Answers on Feds’ Secret Influence Over Big Tech Speech Policing appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Uncut and Unfiltered: 2024 Is the Independent Media Election, Leaving Legacy Media in the Dust appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Democrats Are Infantilizing Women

Ballot Boxes Set On Fire in Oregon, Washington

Tech giant Microsoft is once again taking aim at free speech as the 2024 election approaches. In an Oct. 23 blog post, Microsoft accused U.S. adversaries Russia, China, and Iran of “undermining U.S. democratic processes” with online activities. The Microsoft Threat Analysis Center (MTAC) offered an equally problematic and anti-free speech solution, calling on politicians, government institutions, and online fact-checkers to target and censor information with alleged foreign ties online. This comes even after The Twitter Files repeatedly revealed how Twitter censored Americans who were falsely accused of Russian ties. Microsoft referenced an incident in which Iranian hackers allegedly sent “stolen, non-public material from former President Trump’s campaign” to Joe Biden’s campaign and media entities, according to a federal investigation. The tech giant asserted that Chinese agents are targeting the elections of members of Congress and other down-ballot Republican candidates online. And the blog accused “Russian actors” of trying to spread false information about Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz. Ultimately, Microsoft’s solution was to encourage fact-checking and something akin to pre-bunking, both of which often silence constitutionally-protected free speech online. “With a particular focus on the 48 hours before and after Election Day, voters, government institutions, candidates, and parties must remain vigilant against deceptive and suspicious activity online,” Microsoft claimed. “Early detection and fact-checking remain essential to countering these efforts and maintaining election integrity.” Microsoft particularly tried to raise hysteria about artificial intelligence-generated content. Again, this is particularly concerning in light of past misidentification of Americans as foreign disinformation spreaders. After the 2016 election, the witchhunt for Russian bots online led to censorship of Americans on Twitter, per the Twitter Files. One American user, @drkwarlord, was accused of living in Asia and launching a “Russian hashtag” because he was a night nurse who posted at unusual hours, according to the Twitter Files. Microsoft also has a track record of pushing for censorship. For instance, in 2021, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) accused Microsoft-owned LinkedIn of censoring content that was critical of Communist China. LinkedIn also censoredcontent critical of Covid-19 vaccines. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos may have tipped his hand on who he believes will be the next president of the United States, a new Media Research Center study found. After searching for “election party decorations” and “election party favors” on Amazon, MRC researchers uncovered that 57% of partisan election party decorations and 61% of partisan election party favors were Trump or Republican-themed on Oct. 25. On the same day, Bezos’s publication, The Washington Post, became the second major publication in a week to announce that its editorial board would not be endorsing a candidate for president following a reported decision by Bezos. The Post has endorsed every Democratic presidential nominee from former President Bill Clinton in 1992 to President Joe Biden in 2020. But Bezos apparently wasn’t content with just nixing The Post’s decades-long, objectivity-wrecking tradition of endorsing presidential candidates. But reporting from The New York Times revealed Bezos's signal to his newspaper “that he is interested in expanding The Post’s audience among conservatives.” Bezos reportedly informed Post CEO Will Smith “that he wants more conservative writers on the opinion section,” The Times wrote. This would be a dramatic overhauling of a media outlet that has spewed predominantly unhinged leftist and anti-Israel agitprop for years. MRC Free Speech America Vice President Schneider suggested that Bezos simply saw how the Biden-Harris administration discriminated and punished his competitor, X owner Elon Musk, and is scrambling to show Trump that the Post can function like a news outlet once again. During the Oct. 26 edition of the James Golden Show Schneider said that Bezos has been watching actions against Musk’s existing federal contracts and his companies by various government departments. “Suddenly, Elon Musk is being fined, investigated, probed for what he has potentially done, the entire power of the Harris-Biden police state has come down on his head and the second wealthiest man on the planet [Bezos] is thinking ‘well could Trump do that to me, too?’”  Schneider went on to explain that Bezos believes that Trump will win and incorrectly fears that Trump would take the same “fascistic” approach that Biden and Harris have embraced.        Bezos’s decisions aren’t boding too well for the uber-leftist apparatchiks at The Post, who are reportedly up in arms that their seemingly impenetrable echo chamber has just been breached by their leadership. The Post Editorial Board even tried to put its CEO on blast: “‘The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial.’”  Schneider wasn’t the only one to allude to Bezos possibly genuflecting to Trump. Former Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan, who resigned in protest of Bezos’s decision to halt his newspaper’s endorsement of Harris like a petulant child, surmised that “[i]t’s a sort of preemptive bending of the knee to who they may think is the probable winner,” said Kagan. “‘Anybody who is as much a part of the American economy as Bezos is … they obviously want to have a good relationship with whoever is in power. [It’s] an attempt to try not to be on the wrong side of Donald Trump,’” he continued.  Whether the reason for Bezos unplugging himself from the leftist matrix is a genuine red-pilling or just that he got the heebie-jeebies that Trump could be in the White House again is unimportant. The Post is long overdue for a shakeup of its left-wing orthodoxy. Other informal signs of a potential Trump victory include the betting markets PredictIt and Polymarket. On Oct. 28, Polymarket showed a 66 percent chance that Trump will become the nation’s 47th president but gave Harris only a 34 percent chance of that honor (unless Biden leaves office before Inauguration Day). PredictIt also heavily favored Trump on Oct. 28, forcing users to put down 60 cents on the former president if they wished to bet on his return to office. Investing in Kamala Harris is apparently a riskier proposition as PredictIt offers users a deal of only 43 cents to pick her.  The 2024 Republican presidential nominee has also thrived in casual local competitions such as a cookie-buying contest in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania and another cookie contest in Cincinnati that has predicted every presidential election since 1984 (except 2020).  Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech  Methodology  For this report, MRC Free Speech America analyzed the first 100 results for the Oct. 25 Amazon results for “election party decorations” and the Oct. 25 Amazon results for “election party favors.” MRC Free Speech America used a private window utilizing the Brave privacy browser to analyze Google search results to limit the influence of prior search history and tracking cookies.