Search Results
6/29/2025, 5:15:25 AM
>>24505082
>>24505082
They had the whole thing of “debunking far-right disinformation, misinformation, harmful conspiracy theories and psy-ops” going on for some years before this, too, I mean particularly in the Western liberal nations, and a more paranoid and conspiratorial person might see it as deliberately leading up to such an event, to pre-emptively prime the minds of the populace to belittle and attack those “conspiracy theorists” and trust their governments, or even the W.H.O. in this case, a supragovernmental/nongovernmental organization which was essentially dictating policy in many nations, and even dictating what major corporations did, including the Big Tech platforms like YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook.
There was a period where even doctors, nurses, embalmers or coroners or undertakers going online, to make a video on YouTube for instance, dissenting from the pandemic response policies, would have their videos or content very shortly taken down. On YouTube what showed up was a message saying something like, “This video has been removed for giving disinformation on COVID-19, by the guidance of the WHO.” It was surreal and somewhat frightening to see it in real time.
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/managing-harmful-vaccine-content-youtube/
Now keep in mind, I’m suggesting something like what we might call neo-fascism. You can object, “They’re a private platform, they can host or refuse to host whatever content they like! It’s not a free speech or First Amendment issue!” First, in the U.S. there actually were things like White House and DHS coordination with several of these big social media platforms, encouraging them to remove “harmful far-right disinformation/misinformation/conspiracy theories” and the like, under Biden, which was treading dangerously close to breaking to the spirit of law.
Second, even aside from that, there can still be practical threats to our liberties or quality of life, even apart from whether they were following the letter of the law (Jesuitically and casuistically). A nongovernmental organization influencing what major corporations, which host the speech of millions to billions of people, are heavily involved with the spread of information and news across the Internet, should do. One classic definition of fascism was the merger of state and corporate power. We had some neo-version of it to an extent, with the government encouraging Big Tech platforms to censor speech for them which they themselves as the govt couldn’t (directly) do, then with this added twist of an NGO, the W.H.O., gaining a massive semi-official power which transcended any one nation but instead influenced many. It was almost a ceding of sovereignty, and not very “democratic”: so you could also call it approaching technocracy, or rule by (allegedly) qualified technical or scientific experts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri
>>24505082
They had the whole thing of “debunking far-right disinformation, misinformation, harmful conspiracy theories and psy-ops” going on for some years before this, too, I mean particularly in the Western liberal nations, and a more paranoid and conspiratorial person might see it as deliberately leading up to such an event, to pre-emptively prime the minds of the populace to belittle and attack those “conspiracy theorists” and trust their governments, or even the W.H.O. in this case, a supragovernmental/nongovernmental organization which was essentially dictating policy in many nations, and even dictating what major corporations did, including the Big Tech platforms like YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook.
There was a period where even doctors, nurses, embalmers or coroners or undertakers going online, to make a video on YouTube for instance, dissenting from the pandemic response policies, would have their videos or content very shortly taken down. On YouTube what showed up was a message saying something like, “This video has been removed for giving disinformation on COVID-19, by the guidance of the WHO.” It was surreal and somewhat frightening to see it in real time.
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/managing-harmful-vaccine-content-youtube/
Now keep in mind, I’m suggesting something like what we might call neo-fascism. You can object, “They’re a private platform, they can host or refuse to host whatever content they like! It’s not a free speech or First Amendment issue!” First, in the U.S. there actually were things like White House and DHS coordination with several of these big social media platforms, encouraging them to remove “harmful far-right disinformation/misinformation/conspiracy theories” and the like, under Biden, which was treading dangerously close to breaking to the spirit of law.
Second, even aside from that, there can still be practical threats to our liberties or quality of life, even apart from whether they were following the letter of the law (Jesuitically and casuistically). A nongovernmental organization influencing what major corporations, which host the speech of millions to billions of people, are heavily involved with the spread of information and news across the Internet, should do. One classic definition of fascism was the merger of state and corporate power. We had some neo-version of it to an extent, with the government encouraging Big Tech platforms to censor speech for them which they themselves as the govt couldn’t (directly) do, then with this added twist of an NGO, the W.H.O., gaining a massive semi-official power which transcended any one nation but instead influenced many. It was almost a ceding of sovereignty, and not very “democratic”: so you could also call it approaching technocracy, or rule by (allegedly) qualified technical or scientific experts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri
Page 1