Re: FBI, Big Tech, Big Media: Partners in collusion

On 12/4/22 3:34 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/fbi-big-tech-big-media-partners-in-
> collusion/
> 
> The bold release by Elon Musk of Twitter files on how and why employees
> blocked The Post’s 2020 bombshell on Hunter Biden’s laptop marks a
> defining moment in modern American history. The disturbing details of
> arrogance and ignorance revealed the so-called geniuses pulling the
> technology levers to be as supernatural as the man behind the curtain in
> “The Wizard of Oz.”
> 
> The deflating reaction in both is the same: Is that all there is?
> 
> In this case, no, not by a long shot. For Musk’s revelations must be the
> start of a national campaign to expose the entire picture of the unholy
> collusion between partisan government censors and Big Tech.
> 
> Consider that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted to podcaster
> Joe Rogan the FBI warned the company in the fall of 2020 to watch out for
> Russian disinformation schemes.
> 
> “The FBI came to us, some folks on our team, and was like ‘hey, just so
> you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of
> Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that
> basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that.’”
> 
> Zuckerberg said that by way of explaining why Facebook limited and in some
> cases blocked users from sharing The Post’s laptop report.
> 
> Twitter obviously got the same warning, which almost certainly involved
> James Baker, a former FBI general counsel who was involved in
> investigating the Trump campaign in 2016 and now holds a similar position
> at Twitter. Naturally, the released files show he was without remorse or
> doubt in urging repression of The Post’s story.
> 
> Moreover, as Intercept reporter Lee Fang has detailed and as a former
> Twitter official confirmed, the FBI held weekly meetings in Silicon Valley
> with tech officials about policing disinformation. Of course, their
> definition of disinformation was so broad as to include virtually anything
> that made Joe Biden or Democrats look bad.
> 
> But knowing all that, it still would be naive to think we know the whole
> story. For example, we don’t know who in the FBI was running the censoring
> operation, whether it was a rogue outfit or came from the top. Nor do we
> know if the operation continues now.
> 
> We do know the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop for a year before The Post
> started to reveal the contents. You don’t have to be a cynic to wonder if
> the agents waved Facebook and Twitter off the story because they knew it
> was true.
> 
> There is also a good chance the censorship effort involved other federal
> agencies. Fang and his Intercept colleague Ken Klippenstein reported in
> October that documents and court testimony show the Department of Homeland
> Security has “an expansive effort . . . to influence tech platforms.”
> 
> Getting to the bottom of this collusion to thwart the First Amendment and
> mislead the public is a job custom-made for the hungry young Turks who
> will head the investigating committees of the new GOP House majority.
> 
> But hold on — there remains another missing piece of the puzzle: the bell
> cows of the mainstream media.
> 
> They, too, avoided touching the initial Hunter scoop — except to try to
> knock it down. Why?
> 
> The New York Times, for example, waited four days before printing a lazy
> article that tried to undermine the story by saying some Post newsroom
> employees were uncertain of its veracity. It’s shocking even now to
> realize Times reporters had access to Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden’s
> former partner, but refused to print that he confirmed the authenticity of
> the email naming Joe Biden as “the big guy” slated for a secret 10% cut in
> a joint venture with a Chinese conglomerate.
> 
> There are two basic possibilities for explaining media complicity. First,
> perhaps the Times, Washington Post, CNN and others, all of whom are often
> favored with partisan leaks from the Justice Department, got misled by the
> FBI into thinking the story was bogus.
> 
> Did Big Guy profit?
> Indeed, since then, they and other media laptop deniers have authenticated
> key contents, though in a scattered fashion that has left unexplored the
> central issue of Joe Biden’s role.
> 
> Did the president of the United States profit from the selling of access
> to him, and is he compromised in dealing with foreign powers? No one in
> Big Media seems to care.
> 
> The other possibility for media complicity is they might have gone along
> as a favor to their FBI minders because it fit their shared agenda to
> defeat Trump and elect Biden.
> 
> After all, they were teammates in a similar effort in 2016, the Russia
> hoax to try to elect Hillary Clinton. That one failed and they were
> determined to succeed this time. So better not look too closely at Biden.
> 
> Whatever the reason, we can say with absolute certainty the unholy
> collusion has three legs: the government, Big Tech and Big Media.
> 
> Another unresolved piece of that alliance is the cabal of 51 former
> intelligence officers who signed a letter saying the laptop had “all the
> earmarks” of Russian disinformation. None had seen the laptop, but their
> letter became the story the media seized on and offered Joe Biden a
> lifeline in his next debate with Trump. Some signers still defend the
> letter, and not one has apologized for misleading the public.
> 
> This is hardly a matter fit only for historians, especially not when most
> of the media covered Musk’s release the same way they covered the initial
> laptop story. They ignored it.
> 
> That seems odd, until you consider they might have feared their role in
> suppressing the original story would be outed by the documents. I would
> call it a guilty conscience if these Dem handmaidens actually had a
> conscience, but that went overboard with all their standards the minute
> Trump came down the escalator.
> 
> To make matters infinitely worse, the concentrated power of this collusion
> is unlike anything ever seen in our nation.
> 
> The alliance leaders have become the purveyors of the only acceptable
> opinions and enforcers against dissenters. Their domain ranges from print
> to broadcast to social media and they aim to dictate what 300 million
> Americans can say and do on everything from COVID to race to the
> environment. Their criticism rattles board rooms, scholars and even
> athletes.
> 
> When they take a united position on a matter, it can be difficult to find
> or hear an alternative. When they block news of an event or limit its
> spread, it is almost as if the event didn’t happen.
> 
> And lest you forget their power, remember that Joe Biden was elected
> president because millions of voters were not allowed to learn The Post
> had unmasked his deep connections to his son’s corrupt schemes.
> 
> The people who did that are not threats to democracy. They are its
> destroyers.
> 
> Ed Seiventenn
> 14 hours ago
> 
> All true. This could have been predicted as far back as the 1950s when the
> authoritarian left was understood.   However, the fault lies with the
> voters, whom, irrespective of conditions, continue to vote D.  It’s time
> for secession
> 
> 
If those few SOCIAL MEDIA Corporations have that much power over the 
NEWS and over people as to change an election then they are by 
definition a *MONOPOLY/DUOPOLY* of BIG TECH and should have been 
dissected and the parts spread out over many many owners to stop the 
corruption and secure the integrity of the U.S. elections.

-- 
-Reality Matters-