Mediaboss Marketing

YouTube is once again curbing free speech, this time censoring Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for disagreeing with the government. Paul posted a video about masks that contradicted current CDC guidance, and as punishment, YouTube removed the video and banned Paul from uploading content for seven days.

Paul originally posted a video of a journalist interviewing him, which included a discussion about the science of masking.

Apparently, because I dared to contradict Dr. Fauci and the government, YouTube has removed my video, Paul said in a response video, which the Big Tech company also removed. YouTube might be a private entity, but theyre acting like an arm of the government censoring those who provide an alternative view to the science deniers in Washington people like Dr. Fauci, who have lied to the American people time and time again about masks.

The offensive content in the video was Pauls claim that N-95 masks are effective but cloth masks are not.

Most of the masks you get over the counter dont work, they dont prevent infection, Paul said. Saying cloth masks work when they dont actually risks lives, as someone may choose to care for a loved one with COVID while only wearing a cloth mask. This is not only bad advice but also potentially deadly information.

Paul said the health experts at the CDC have been ignoring key studies on the efficacy of surgical masks.

A Danish study of 6,000 participants found that wearing a surgical mask did not significantly reduce a persons risk of COVID-19 infection compared to the risks facing those who did not wear masks, Paul said. A Vietnamese study of 1,600 participants found that cloth masks allow for 97 percent penetration of particles the same size as the virus. This study also found that cloth mask wearers had a higher rate of infection than the control group who wore no masks.

Paul said hes always supported N-95 masks because they are more protective, which is why health care workers in contact with COVID-19 wear them instead of cloth coverings.

Dr. Fauci knew that too, which is why he originally lied to the public and said that the masks dont work. He feared not enough health workers would be able to buy N-95 masks if the public was buying them, Paul said. Ask any doctor or nurse what mask they wear when they go into a COVID patients room: only an N-95 mask, because the other masks dont work.

A YouTube spokesperson told The Federalist that Paul has been issued a first strike for his comments on masks.

We removed content from Senator Pauls channel for including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19, in accordance with our COVID-19 medical misinformation policies, the spokesperson said. This resulted in a first strike on the channel, which means it cant upload content for a week, per our longstanding three strikes policy. We apply our policies consistently across the platform, regardless of speaker or political views, and we make exceptions for videos that have additional context such as countervailing views from local health authorities.

Although Paul said private companies have a right to ban him, he thinks YouTubes censorship is dangerous.

As a libertarian-leaning senator, I think private companies have the right to ban me if they want to, but I think it is really anti-free speech, anti-progress of science, which involves skepticism and argumentation to arrive at the truth, Paul said. I will try to channel my anger, not in breaking these companies up but by publicly expressing my disagreement with them and publicly promoting other channels that offer free-speech alternatives.

Maggie Hroncich is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College.

Read the original here:
YouTube Censors If You Disagree With The CDC, Even If You're A Senator - The Federalist

sponsored

In the history of every successful startup, there comes a defining moment a moment when the vision of its founders clashes with the impossible and, against all odds, triumphs by becoming a reality. ADAX, a decentralized exchange (DEX) within the Cardano ecosystem, has just experienced that moment.

We are thrilled to demonstrate that, as promised, ADAXs trustless protocol will enable censorship-resistant token swaps within the Cardano ecosystem, make full use of social sentiment-based trading tools, and ensure ample asset liquidity through unique liquidity pools. For the last three months, our team of seasoned developers and finance professionals have been working tirelessly to hit this milestone. We are now proud to say that we are on the right track.

Welcome to the DeFi world powered by frictionless transactions on ADAX.

Our UX team have spent countless hours making sure that ADAX DEX is built according to the industrys best practices and that the user experience is both intuitive and frictionless. Take a look at the new UI designed for your convenience at ADAX.pro.

ADAX DEX protocol is streamlined to be lean and mean. ADAX users are empowered to execute smart contract-based trades instantly and only at a fraction of the cost of the Ethereum network. ADAX also has no order book all intermediaries and cumbersome procedures have been stripped out of the equation, giving users untrammelled freedom to trade without ever giving up control of their assets.

Thanks to our exclusive partnership with Stockgeist.AI, a market sentiment monitoring platform, ADAXs traders will be empowered to re-calibrate their investments based on early signs of changing social sentiment. By utilizing the data scraped from social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Discord, ADAXs traders will know exactly which tokens are getting hot and which are cooling down, thus stretching their lead over the competitors even further.

Most liquidity pools in existence rely on dynamically changing ratios, with impermanent loss rampant in low-volume assets, often undermining the very risk/reward-based rationale of early liquidity providers. ADAX liquidity pools are different and do not suffer from that all-too-common problem that saps the market liquidity services of our competitors.

To inch closer to the goal of becoming the UniSwap of Cardano, ADAX is in the process of ensuring widespread wallet integration. Will offer full support of Yoroi, GeroWallet and CardsWallet, we have many more API-based integrations planned for the immediate future.

Throughout our journey to ensure the prosperity of all stakeholders within the Cardano ecosystem, we have received more support than we could have ever predicted. Weve had an oversubscribed private sale and a tremendously successful IEO on ExMarkets. Weve also cultivated partnerships with projects like Charli3 and BlackDragon and welcomed the backing of some of the most important crypto stakeholders, including Roger Ver, the so-called Bitcoin Jesus, and Mate Tokey, a co-founder of Bitcoin.com.

Most recently, our list of valued relationships has expanded to include GeroWallet, a multi-functional Cardano Wallet, and MELD, a leading non-custodial banking protocol. The latter will be using our platform as the designated DEX for their token and providing the Polygon bridge to further increase the cross-chain spread that ADAX is aiming for.

In short, we are both extremely excited and humbled by the amount of support we have received. We hope that by delivering on our promises, we can begin to give back to the enthusiastic Cardano community, which continues to support us throughout our quest to become the most powerful trading venue within the Cardano ecosystem.

To find out more about how ADAX is changing the world of DeFi on Cardano, visit the website at https://adax.pro/

Twitter || Telegram

This is a sponsored post. Learn how to reach our audience here. Read disclaimer below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Go here to see the original:
ADAX Have Just Changed the Game, Offering Censorship-Resistant DeFi via ADA Sponsored Bitcoin News - Bitcoin News

WASHINGTON, July 23, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- YouTube has restored a video interview conducted by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that was removed by the Big Tech giant on Monday for "medical misinformation." The video was restored three days after YouTube rejected an appeal filed by FRC over the video's removal and one day after the press was notified of YouTube's actions.

In the video, Mary Holland, president and general counsel of Children's Health Defense, was interviewed about her organization's lawsuit against Washington, D.C. over the city's new law authorizing schools to administer vaccines to children eleven years of age and older without parental knowledge or consent. In the interview, Holland warned of the dangers of removing parental protections from medical decisions involving children. The interview was within the context of the COVID-19 vaccines but contained no medical information or medical advice.

The interview aired July 16 on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, a program that broadcasts on nearly 800 Christian radio stations as well as Christian TV. On July 19, YouTube removed the interview from its platform. This was four days after the White House announced publicly that they would be flagging "disinformation" for Big Tech.FRC promptly appealed the YouTube decision the same day. The appeal was rejected by the Big Tech giant the next day, on July 20. It was restored after FRC issued a press statement on July 22, reporting on the video's removal.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"We are glad to see our video restored on YouTube but recognize that there are many conservatives who are quietly being censored and do not have an adequate recourse to get the heavy hand of Big Tech giants like YouTube to budge. If it was not FRC with a nationwide platform on nearly 800 radio stations and tens of thousands of engaged Christians reading our daily communications would YouTube have admitted their error?It seems like Big Tech's default setting is to shut up conservatives, requiring them to jump through hoops and file appeals in order to speak on issues from a perspective different from that of the Left. This should not be. Conservatives should not have to get media attention in order to be heard. YouTube is failing to live up to its stated mission 'to give everyone a voice and show them the world.'

"We should also be greatly troubled by Big Government's effort to team up with Big Tech to 'flag problematic posts' that, in their eyes, 'spread disinformation.' We are witnessing an intensified attack on our First Amendment freedoms as Big Tech yields itself to the strings of Big Government, which wants to silence dissent.Big Tech should not become a puppet of Big Government doing the dirty work for them. We know that Big Tech has yielded to the demands of tyrannical governments elsewhere. Americans need to wake up and realize that the Biden administration, like totalitarian governments in China, Russia, and elsewhere, are using COVID to restrict the fundamental freedoms of the citizens, and it will not stop here," concluded Perkins.

To watch the now-restored Washington Watch interview with Mary Holland on YouTube, visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4snr7LISh8.

To watch the interview on Rumble, visit: https://rumble.com/vk1qj9-mary-holland-warns-of-the-dangers-of-removing-parental-protections-from-chi.html.

To read the transcript of the interview, visit: https://frcblog.com/2021/07/mary-holland-dangers-removing-parental-protections-childrens-medical-decisions/.

To watch more interviews on Washington Watch, visit: tonyperkins.com.

SOURCE Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org

Continued here:
YouTube Backtracks on Censorship of FRC Interview on Whether Schools Should Vaccinate Children Without Parental Knowledge or Consent - PRNewswire

WARNINGS have been issued over the new "Freedom Phone" which claims to protect privacy and allow free speech without censorship.

According to the company and its founder Erik Finman, 22, the phone aims to "create a future where free communication is not banned by Big Tech".

4

4

The phone has its own app store where no information is censored, allowing customers to read and watch whatever they want.

It also contains preloaded conservative apps, including ones which have been banned by other app stores.

The Freedom Phone operates with its own software FreedomOS and has massive memory space, fast processors, front and back cameras, and all-day battery life.

Self-proclaimed Bitcoin millionaire Finman claims the $500 phone, which launched last week, is comparable to the best smartphones on the market.

"This is the first major pushback on the Big Tech companies that attacked us - for just thinking different,"Finman tweeted.

"Were finally taking back control."

But the new device has a lot of "red flags", CNET reports.

"The Freedom Phone and its politically conservative branding will appeal to many. But there is nothing to suggest that the phone, its privacy claims or avoidance of 'Big Tech' work the way Finman suggests," Patrick Holland writes.

"The fact the phone is already available to order - and that there are more buy buttons on the website than phone hardware specs describing the phone's capabilities - are all red flags.

"The absence of technical details and the fact that the company is already accepting money for preorders heightens our skepticism that the company will be able to meet those orders as well as its lofty privacy claims."

CNET highlights how Finman doesn't explain how the phone works, or how it protects your privacy or free speech.

Based on photographs from the company website a number of Internet sleuths identified that the device has the same form-factor, shape, and appearance of a Umidigi A9 Pro.

It is also unclear if the phone will be able to run apps such as Adobe Acrobat, social media apps such as TikTok or Snapchat, or even dating apps such as Tinder or Grindr.

"It also isn't clear how the phone would handle technical details like IP tracing, website cookies or other conventional tracking tools used on phones and other electronic devices," Holland writes.

Other experts have warned the device appears to be a budget phone from Asia.

Matthew Hickey, the co-founder ofHacker Houseand longtime cyber professional,told Daily Dot: "This device is a drop-shipped customizable Android-based phone.

"They can be bought and shipped in bulk from Asia with custom logos and branding so as to give the appearance of a phone that has been designed for a unique purpose."

Hickey told Gizmodo: "Based on photographs from the company website a number of Internet sleuths identified that the device has the same form-factor, shape, and appearance of aUmidigi A9 Pro."

He said the phone is known for its poor security due to its use of processors from MediaTek - a Taiwanese company that provides chips for smartphones.

"I have never encountered a secure MediaTek device in my entire life," Hickey warned.

"Using MediaTek for anything and expecting privacy or security is fundamentally flawed."

Hickey even claimed MediaTeks processors are widely used in smartphones throughout North Korea due to their "highly customizable nature and low-security barrier".

It comes after Candace Owens threw her support behind the phone.

Theconservative firebrand tweeted: "So excited that I partnered with a SOLUTION against Apple and Google."

Owens also tweeted a clip from an Instagram live, talking her followers through the phone and how she came to endorse it.

She said she was furious that conservative social media app Parler was banned from the app store in the wake of the January 6 riots, in addition to former President Trump being banished from most social platforms.

"A bunch of people contacted us saying they're making a phone," Owens said, adding they were sent a number of different concept handsets.

"Some were terrible. Some were worse than terrible," she said before Owens was finally sent the Freedom Phone.

"I'm so excited," she added. "You need to get this phone.

"I've been on social media for four years... I've never done a sponsored post."

Owens continued: "If it doesn't help save the nation, I don't pitch it."

According to the Freedom Phone website, the handsets will be shipped in August and users will be able to start using it by simply inserting their old SIM cards into their new phones.

The device works with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and all the other domestic and international carriers.

The Sun has contacted Freedom Phone for comment.

4

4

View original post here:
Warning over new Freedom Phone that claims to protect your privacy and allow free speech without cen... - The US Sun

Newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form have always, and I mean always, reserved the right to publish or not publish whatever they feel like publishing or not publishing for whatever reasoneven just because. I come from printed stuff. This belief is baked into me. When newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form decide not to publish something, it's not nor ever will be censorship. It's reserving the right to publish or not publish whatever for whatever.

This right to publish or not publish whatever they want for whatever reason is rooted in the history, tradition and constitutional guarantee of the rights to free speech, free thought, free expression and free inquiry. People who do not own the local newspaper have the equal right to raise hell when the paper doesn't publish their letters to the editor, when the newspaper won't run their press releases, but the local newspaper is not silencing them or canceling themand it is not censoring them. Everyone in America has the right to free speech. No one in America has the right to be published.

Newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form used to be the exclusive venues for the expression of public opinion. Obviously, that's still partly the case, but Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have expanded the square infinitesimally. Instead of writing for the New Haven Register, and hoping to have a modicum of influence on the political thinking of my neighbors, I now write this newsletter, hoping to have a modicum of influence on the political thinking of my fellow Americans. The principles of free speech, however, are the same. If Substack, the platform I'm using, stopped working with me, for whatever reason, there might be serious consequences, but among those would not be credible allegations of censorship. Substack has the right to publish or not publish whatever for whatever.

I'm making a big deal about this for a good reason. We are in a moment in our history where politics is slowly taking our culture further, a few steps further, in a liberal direction. The election of an out-and-out fascist in 2016 unleashed a torrent of political energy, especially with respect to women (#MeToo) and Black people and people of color (George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, DACA, the border wall and Muslim ban). The unseating of a sitting president by an anti-racist and anti-fascist coalition is, to me, the greatest illustration of this forward movement. One of the consequences of this torrent of history-changing political energy has been that "white peoplewhite men, in particularface a little more scrutiny today than in the past," wrote Thomas Zimmer, a historian and visiting professor at Georgetown University, recently:

In other words, the more liberal we get, the more likely people benefiting from the status quo are going to bitch and moan about censorship. As we debate "cancel culture" and other terms made up by those who benefit from the status quo, the meaning of censorship has expanded so aggressively and in so many directions it has come to mean anything that's not unfettered, unchallenged, highly lubricated and friction-free speech. Censorship is now so uncritically defined that it means anyone disagreeing with me is censoring me. Again, Professor Zimmer: "You can see why white men with big public platforms from across the political spectrum see 'persecution' where I see progress: If you believe you are entitled to say and do whatever you want without legal or cultural sanction, 'leftist' activism is a threat."

There's that word, "entitled." We have confused entitled speech for free speech. They are not and never have been the same. But as we move through this moment in history, in which we reexamine how we elected a fascist and, furthermore, the social and political conditions from which he arose, we are blurring them. In the process of protecting the privileges of those who have benefited from the status quo, we are, ironically, protecting the conditions that made us weak enough to elect a fascist.

Facebook, Twitter, or any social media platform banning anyone for any reason is not censorship. It is not silencing. It is not cancelling. It is that platform exercising its own right to host, or "publish," whatever it wants for whatever reason. It is an exercise of that platform's right to free speech, free expression, etc. We live in a time in which there are unprecedented ways to express oneself. You don't need Facebook to be a free citizen. Write a blog! Write a letter to the editor! Speechify from a soapbox in a public park! We are acting like we're entitled to a Facebook account. When it bans someone for whatever reason, it's big bad censorship. No, it's not. Instead, it's complaining about not getting what you want when you want it. It's acting more like a consumer than a citizen, more like a spoiled child than responsible grownup. People who see themselves as victims are people ready to put a dictator in the White House.

When Twitter bans a former president, that's not censorship. When Facebook bans a former president temporarily, that's not censorship. When someone criticizes someone else, calling them a racist, that's not censorship. When organized groups build social pressure to force public or private institutions to live up to their stated ideals, that's not censorship. When someone says, "Hey, you can't say that!" that's not censorship. When a crowd shouts down a speaker, that's not censorship. When a Black person or person of color tells a white person to take a seat, that's not censorship. When a town enacts noise ordinances or when it outlaws the breach of peace, that's not censorship. When a state outlaws the distribution of child pornography, that's not censorship. When the government asks social media platforms to stop hosting misinformation about the health, safety and efficacy of the covid vaccines, that's not censorship. All of these are acts of free speech or counter-speech. All of them are legitimate politics.

It's effective politics, from the point of view of people who benefit from the status quo, to get as many people as possible to think it's censorship. That way, people don't have to think about whether it's a good idea to let a massive social media platform keep hosting misinformation about the health, safety and efficacy of the covid vaccines in a pandemic that's likely to kill a million Americans before it's all over. That way, people don't have to think about the role of white supremacy in the shaping of the republic. They don't have to think. They can instead dismiss it, as if it were illegitimate. And while they are doing that, people who benefit from the status quo, especially white men, can enact laws that actually do infringe on the right to free speech. Many states, but especially southern states, are now outlawing teaching the history of slavery. This, my friend, is what censorship is: when a government forbids learning and knowledge, because ignorance and poverty are better for people who benefit from the status quo.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Here is the original post:
Are we really in a crisis of 'censorship'? - AlterNet