Twitter Executive Details Plans for Political Censorship on a Global Scale in Recording Obtained By Project Veritas

Project Veritas has released an alarming new video exposing senior Twitter Executive Vijaya Gadde detailing plans to replicate censorship measures around the world.

The new video is Part 2 in a series exposing Twitter.

In the first release, Jack Dorsey laid out the roadmap for future political censorship.

“We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and go on beyond the inauguration,” Dorsey said in a video recorded January 8.

The latest release features Gadde, Twitter Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead, saying that “we’re going to actually be more aggressive in our enforcement beyond de-amplification.”

“One of the interesting things is a lot of the work that we’ve been doing over the last week is work that we’ve built on in other places around the world, where we’ve seen violence unfold as a result of either misleading information or coded rhetoric,” Gadde says.

“A lot of our learnings here [in the United States] have come from other markets. So, in that sense, you know, we do feel like it is – this is our global approach.” Gadde: “We need to be very focused on being able to enforce any of these policies or enforcement decisions we make at scale.”

She continues to detail their censorship efforts by saying, “we decided to escalate our enforcement of the civic integrity policy and use a label that disabled engagements to stop the spread of potentially inflammatory content, which is the content around election interference, election fraud, stealing the election, that type of thing.”

“We think that the severity of what’s happening on the ground, coupled with the information that’s contained in these [election fraud] tweets — misleading information about the election being stolen and massive fraud around the election are what is changing our analysis of how we should enforce this [civic integrity] policy. It [election fraud tweets] is a much more severe violation given what we were seeing on the ground.”

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/breaking-twitter-executive-details-plans-political-censorship-global-scale-recording-obtained-project-veritas-video/

YouTube Suspends, Demonetizes One America News Network

Big tech censorship strikes conservatives again. This time the target is One America News Network which has been suspended for one week and been demonetized by YouTube for allegedly posting a video promoting a cure for the COVID-19 China coronavirus.

The action against OAN was first reported by Axios (excerpt):

YouTube Deletes Del Bigtree & “The HighWire”

(via Collective Evolution) YouTube will call it ‘not complying with community standards on COVID-19,’ but we all know their move to remove The HighWire is a move of censorship of information, under the guise of calling it mis-information.

What Happened: Like us here at CE, The HighWire has been questioning vaccine safety as well as COVID-19 over the past several years, and as of last night, YouTube decided delete The HighWire’s YouTube channel, which has more than 100,000 subscribers, without notice.

In a video released by Del Bigtree, he states:

“I actually think this is a moment for celebration, because as most of you know, especially those who have played sports, how do you know when you are winning? When the other team has no choice but to start cheating.”

I totally agree with his statement. Why would you have to censor content if it was obviously false? Why is the content of censored material never addressed, and instead only ridiculed?

Earlier this year I had a discussion with Del about their lawsuit against the CDC which came as the CDC refused to answer to FOIA (freedom of information act) requests from ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) to show what studies the CDC uses to make the statement on their website that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”  The CDC did provided were studies showing, at best according to BigTree, how antigens within the MMR vaccines don’t cause autism, but they did not provide anything to meet the requirement ICAN had set forth.

ICAN’s strategy was to focus on vaccines given within the first 6 months of a baby’s life as per the standard schedule as this is when autism can start to be diagnosed. It should further be reiterated that ICAN asked for studies to show that the cumulative exposure to these vaccines, i.e. how they react together in the body, does not lead to autism. The studies provided did not seem to answer ICAN’s inquiry.

I wrote about this story here and was fact checked for it. Fact checkers claimed that our story was false and that the CDC provided a study to show the MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism. What fact checkers left out was that this study only referred to the MMR vaccine, which ICAN did not even ask about. Also, fact checkers pointed to a study that actually concludes that vaccines cannot be ruled out in the onset of childhood autism.

“It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between exposure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression.”

Is it possible that we are not being told thhe whole truth about vaccines? And big tech companies are compliant in keeping these truths out of the public eye?

In our journey, we have lost millions of dollars in revenue over the last 4 years due to the censorship of big tech companies and fact checkers. We have had to layoff many employees as a result, and our impact has dropped dramatically. We have gone from having 5 times the traffic of many mainstream news sources, to only reaching a few million people per month.

We have had content completed deleted and our name tarnished as journalists, all for telling a complete story about what is going on in our world, as opposed to a narrow view we know as ‘mainstream consensus.’

Luckily, we have not been all-out banned yet like The HighWire just was on YouTube, but we expect that day could come at any time.

This is why we have asked people to become members of CETV. This platform is how we have been able to keep up with supporting our work financially and it is where we post the majority of our exclusive video content and courses at this time.

CETV is dedicated to helping to advance human consciousness while informing people about what is going on in our world. Please consider becoming a member on CETV here.

Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History

Wikipedia has deleted its ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’. Stalin — who set the template for airbrushing inconvenient people out of history — would no doubt have heartily approved of this wanton act of censorship.

But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.

“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”

What this Wikipedia editor is saying, in other words, is that if you’re a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming then that automatically makes you not a scientist.

In fact many tens of thousands of scientists are sceptical of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, including some of the most eminent experts in the field, among them physicists Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Will Happer of Princeton.

But the kind of intolerant leftists who tend to edit Wikipedia pages don’t want you to know this.

Their archived debate as to whether the ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’ offers a fascinating, if not exactly surprising, insight into their mindset.

The editors variously refer to these often eminent scientists as “cranks” and “a club of fools”.

One says:

Cranks are well-known to maintain such lists of authoritative-sounding people to bolster their own legitimacy, and this list is just another in this genre. Long past time to kill it.

Another says:

The list is synthesis to mislead the reader into thinking there is significant doubt about the reality of global warming.

This one really, really fancies himself. His contribution is probably best read in the voice of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, whom I’d also guess he physically resembles:

Even ten years ago it was clear to me and others that this article had become a badly written nexus of non-notable fringe theories and advocacy for religious points of view. Ten years on, a dozen scientists formerly denying climate change have died. Outside of another dozen die-hards in the United States, virtually no credentialed scientist does not think that climate change is man-made and will, on the whole, have deleterious effects on us and our world. As a scientific community, we also have much more information and data, and the consensus has gotten stronger (close to 99.9 % of scientists agree) as the obituary pages continue to publish the memorials to those who disagree with scientific consensus. Everyone has moved on with their lives. In the meanwhile, I’ve earned a master’s of art in teaching secondary science. I still find students who don’t believe in evolution, and in some quarters, natural selection remains controversial, but absolutely nobody — not teachers, not students, not scholars — seriously denies climate change any more. A list that purports to list the dozen or so people who still deny it to their grave is shrinking each day, and is an example of fraudulently spreading doubt and uncertainty, as noted by Johnuniq. At some time in the past ten years, climate change denial-ism has become the next alchemyether, and astronomy. Sure there are a handful of believers in this, Area 51cold fusionOccultism in NazismAIDS denialism, and the Age of Aquarius, but it’s so few that to list them in an article is to give extreme undue weight to that side. The list also is written as a Gish gallop – a whole series of illogical arguments with their own adherents designed to obfuscate the lack of evidence of the other side. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A few brave contrarian voices try to argue against censorship.

One makes the point that the scientists on the list aren’t exactly cranks:

Let’s take a look at the list of people responsible for your so called “fringe theories advanced for religious purposes,” shall we?

  • Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;
  • Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize;
  • Judith Curry, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology;
  • Richard Lindzen, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and member of the National Academy of Sciences (you know, that thing Einstein was a member of);
  • Vincent Courtillot, a member of the French Academy of Sciences;
  • Khabibullo Abdussamatov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
  • John Christy, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who keeps the temperature data used by NOAA and NASSA, and who contributes to the IPCC reports;
  • Roy Spencer, who keeps the data with John Christy;
  • Frederich Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences.

Another has to point out that one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to help people research stuff:

This is a valid list article since it helps people find scientists of this type.

But the best response is this one:

With apologies to people who have been conned into believing that the WP climate area is sound … Who are we kidding here? This is an important, long standing article that gives a tiny sliver of balance to grotesquely POV, essentially permanently vandalized, articles on Climate

Not, of course, that his valiant contribution made any difference. Wikipedia gave up trying to be a neutral source of information long ago. If you don’t share its leftist values, you’re really not welcome there.

Source: Breitbart

Google Partners with Soros-Funded Fact-Checking Service to Fight ‘Fake News’

Engadget reports that Google will be working with the Soros-funded Poynter Institute and the International Fact-Checking Network as the tech giant ramps up efforts to prevent the spread of misinformation and “fake news.” The IFCN runs an annual fact-checking conference, funds fellowships, and trains fact-checkers. The group is also responsible for a number of guidelines and code of principles accepted by […]