By corralling basic conservative opinions and beliefs under the umbrella of “hate speech,” social media giants have invented a new ploy to censor conservatives while claiming they are not censoring conservatives.
Nationalism, patriotism, populism, and Christianity are all now being treated as “hateful” by Big Tech.
These companies then engage in a form of legalese where they assert they are not banning people for their personal or political opinions, but because of violations of terms of service.
But the truth is that merely holding and expressing nationalist, populist, patriotic or Christian opinions and beliefs is deemed a “violation” because such beliefs have been subjectively defined as “hateful”.
For example, PayPal announced it was banning Infowars last week because Infowars had “promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance”.
In real terms, this meant that we had opposed the teaching of transgenderism to young children in schools and criticized political Islam.
Alex Jones was also deplatformed by every major Big Tech firm over spurious claims of “hateful” content that were never specifically quantified.
As the leaked Google meeting video illustrates, since November 2016, Big Tech vowed to use its vast power to squelch a movement that Silicon Valley elitists convinced themselves is based on “racism,” “xenophobia” and “extremism”.
By broadening the definition of “hate” to include any argument that challenges far-left progressive dogma, Big Tech has created an environment where the expression of any criticism of sexual lifestyles or belief systems, even if it doesn’t target individuals, can be defined as “harassment” or “hateful”.
This new definition has also been cemented with the aid of Democratic lawmakers like Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), who demanded Facebook and YouTube ban Alex Jones and Infowars for ‘offensive’ and ‘hateful’ content for weeks before it happened.
The “hateful” tag also just happens to be very similar to the “harmful” term utilized by the Communist Chinese government to justify its purge of dissident content.
“China has shut down more than 4,000 websites and online accounts in a three-month campaign against “harmful” online information,” reports ChannelNewsAsia, adding that examples of “harmful” behavior include “spreading rumours” and spreading “improper values”.
Just like the term “hate,” these terms are so vague that virtually anything could be defined as “harmful” or “improper,” which in this case includes dissidents who criticize the government on social media.
Now we see the emergence of “hate facts,” where conservatives can accurately quote crime statistics about minority groups which are provably true, yet publicly sharing such facts becomes a bannable offense because they could be seen to portray minority groups in a negative light.
Tommy Robinson was suspended by Twitter for accurately pointing out that up to 90% of grooming gang culprits in the United Kingdom come from Bangladeshi or Pakistani communities. Despite this being an objective fact, merely expressing it became verboten because it contradicted with the progressive narrative that immigration can only ever be positive.
Mastercard also terminated its agreement with Robert Spencer over vague, non-defined claims that Spencer had posted “illegal content” and promoted violence, an assertion backed up with no actual examples whatsoever.
In reality, Spencer’s crime was to oppose radical Islam, the most violent belief system on the planet.
Until prominent conservatives and Trump administration officials realize that Big Tech is overtly hostile to the mere expression of basic conservative beliefs and is busy creating an environment where they will become increasingly less tolerable, the silencing of voices on the right will only accelerate.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet