Unanswerable Questions

Here’s another question. If there’s absolutely nothing to these new allegations about Hunter Biden, why are Facebook and Twitter censoring the New York Post story, the account of the House Judiciary Committee and the account of the White House press secretary? They never censored the Steele dossier, the Julie Swetnick allegations, or, more recently, the completely unsourced story about Trump’s tax returns.

What’s the difference between these stories, the ones that get censored and the ones that don’t?

Also, for lifelong lefties, there’s this question. Doesn’t it bother you that the most powerful corporations in the world are batting so aggressively for your side? Doesn’t it make you question whether there’s anything wrong with the side you suddenly find yourself on?

22 thoughts on “Unanswerable Questions”

  1. It’s within their rights stop the use of their infrastructure for political smear attacks three weeks before the election.

    People seem to get the idea that free speech extends to private infrastructure space. It doesn’t.


      1. Honestly, I don’t know. I don’t have any say in how Twitter or Facebook restrict content. If it was up to me, they’d both be shutdown. They’re both cesspools of misinformation and provide nothing beneficial to the political discourse in this country.


        1. Again, you are avoiding the question. These are mega important mass media. And they are clearly completely partisan in their censorship on the eve of the election. What does it tell us that the owners of these cesspools are completely on Biden’s side?


          1. It tells me that they are biased towards Biden just the same as Fox News is biased towards Trump. Does that answer your question? Is that really a surprising revelation to you?


            1. There’s a difference between an opinion talk show where hosts express their opinions and a vast media platform that blacks out inconvenient topics discussed by others. Fox News can’t censor your or my speech. Twitter can and does.

              This is a false analogy, if there ever was one.


              1. Clarissa, who owns Fox News? Who owns the New York Post? You’re a very smart person, I know it, I am sure you can connect the dots here and realize Fox News is not just a tiny talk show existing in a vacuum. Fox News has owners, very powerful owners that just happen to also own a vast empire of news media including the New York Post.

                I don’t have a Twitter or a Facebook account so I don’t see how they can possibly censor me.


              2. Comparing the power of whoever owns Fox News and the owner of Facebook is like comparing an ant and the Sun. They exist in entirely different categories. There is no business, for instance, that can exist today without a FB page. Yet advertising on Fox is not a must for every business.


      1. Exactly. The stories that were not censored in spite of being completely unsupported by any evidence are too many to count. The pee tape alone just went on and on and on. Where were the sources for that? Where’s the proof?


    1. “People seem to get the idea that free speech extends to private infrastructure space. It doesn’t.”

      Private my a.. – it is sometimes necessary for a state in a liberal democracy to regulate monopoly or oligopoly power in the public interest of preserving a free market.

      Five companies control 90% of the U.S. media. Only the smallest of these companies, Fox, can be said to feature news content and opinions that diverge, even slightly, from “progressive” orthodoxy. As we see in the case under discussion here, Twitter and Facebook are openly policing mass communications on behalf of the woke/Democratic Party intelligentsia. And, perhaps most threatening of all to open democratic expression and political mobilization are Google Search and Google News.

      Marx hit the nail on the head when he observed that “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.”


      1. Not only do my University, my college and my department have FB and Twitter accounts, we are now starting separate ones for each program in my small department. We can’t exist in professional life without them. Yet there’s no obligation to know the views of Sean Hannity or watch Fox at all to exist in professional life. Compare Fox to CNN, fine. But to Facebook??

        I’m not even touching on the bizarre obsession with Fox which has a lot more never-Trumpers than supporters and which is a drop in the bucket among the multitude of traditional media sources that are hysterically and obsessively anti-Trump. You’d think a normal person would want many news sources supporting different points of view but apparently some people can’t get over two newscasters existing somewhere in the world who aren’t in complete agreement with them.


  2. This is exactly what turned me. I became against BLM as soon as I saw every single app on my phone promote in in tandem.

    Also, has anyone noticed how facebook and twitter have done an about turn and openly declared themselves to be media companies? Their position used to be that they are ‘platforms’ not media companies, but in a recent video Zuck explicitly referred to themselves as a media company. This latest censorship has also been described as an ‘editorial stance’.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Twitter clearly violated election laws yesterday. I hope there will be a congressional hearing. They censored the account of the House Judiciary Committee. It’s insane. Who the ef are they to do it?


  3. I will freely admit that it’s emotional and not try to rationalize it.

    If I’m being screwed over and taken advantage of by the rich and the corporations, it bothers me much less if they spout slogans about diversity than about family values and the US being a Christian nation.

    I have a huge problem with religion in public life. I have been wondering since about 5 years of age how could it be that so many intelligent people completely disagree on existence of god(s). I have read a lot on this topic, including philosophy, history of Christianity and the Bible, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience. I’ve thought about it a lot and struggled with it personally.

    If there’s one thing I miss about the Soviet Union it’s the official atheism of the state. I don’t mean the persecution of religious people, I mean not having to endure people in positions of power using Stone Age myths to justify their decisions and everyone having to take them seriously.

    It’s kind of like BLM is for you.


    1. I’ll start caring about religion in public life when I’m forced, as a condition of employment, to sit through hours of training on how to be a better Christian (Muslim, Hindu, whatever) and when any criticism of the Christian dogma in public or in private becomes a fireable offence that will result in me being unemployable in my field.

      Otherwise, it’s like caring about dinosaurs coming to life and eating us all.

      So no, it’s not like the BLM for me. I’m responding to a real threat to my livelihood that makes me live in fear every day.


  4. If you don’t have access to a smartphone or even a basic cable package you can still watch Fox.

    Anyways, lefties have been complaining since the Reagan administration about the defunct fairness doctrine, and conservatives have pooh poohed this concern. Conservatives wanted the result in Citizens United v. FEC and absolutely did not believe in this doomcasting of consequences by earnest lefties. As one result the Zapple doctrine is defunct.

    If there is no obligation for a media company/publisher to be fair and balanced, and corporations have free speech because money equals speech and there’s no obligation to give equal time over public airwaves, can you really demand all of this of private companies?

    I don’t think any of these judicial appointments you swoon over are going to address this in a way you like.


  5. This is why I make a distinction between “liberals” (think “neoliberals”) and leftists. The most powerful corporations (e.g., Amazon) support liberal causes, like BLM and superficial diversity issues. The focus on diversity serves as a distraction from labor/economic issues. But the left realizes that major corporations are not on “our” side. Although the left is small in numbers, there are quite a few well known leftist intellectuals (e.g., Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Scahill, Adolph Reed, Walter Benn Michaels).

    Unfortunately, the left isn’t really covered that much in mainstream media, which loves liberalism but not the left. Think about the group of historians who criticized the 1619 project in the New York Times: their article appeared on a socialist website.


  6. That last question on your post:
    Absolutely!! Liberal-minded types were VERY MUCH against “The System” back in their heydays of the late-1960s and early-to-mid-1970s.
    But people often flip-flop in their beliefs, actions, and life-styles.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.