The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a two-part look at how the attacks on free speech have changed.
It is ironic that some of the key threats to free speech are now emanating not from an overbearing government, but from some elements of the press itself, particularly social media/internet giants. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously reported, Kalev Leetaru wrote in Forbes that “Far from democratizing how we access the world’s information, the web has in fact narrowed those information sources…the internet is centralizing information access from a myriad websites and local newspapers and radio/television shows to single behemoth social platforms that wield universal global control over what we consume. Indeed, social media platforms appear to increasingly view themselves no longer as neural publishing platforms but rather as active mediators and curators of what we see.”
The internet research organization Can I Rank found that “Although internet search engines like Google play an increasingly prominent role shaping voter opinions and perception of issues and candidates, their ranking algorithms aren’t designed to provide a fairly balanced or completely honest representation of controversial issues…Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results. Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint.” The study found that 16% of political keyword searches yielded no conservative-oriented pages within the initial search results.
Recently, Breitbart reported, “Facebook reportedly shut down an internal chat room which evolved into a forum for anonymous Facebook employees to discuss their support of President Donald Trump. The anonymous group reportedly became a key place of discussion for right-leaning Facebook employees, perhaps because they felt that they could express their conservative views more openly in an anonymous forum. It was reported that a poster advertising the group on Facebook’s campus stated, “Trump Supporters Welcome,” a sentiment that is typically out of place in Silicon Valley. Many observers have drawn comparisons between Facebook’s shut down of one of the few conservative leaning groups for employees and the firing of former Google engineer James Damore who was let go from his position at Google for criticizing the company’s PC culture.”
Pain during tablets viagra online intercourse: Also called dyspareunia, pain during sex is more giving pleasure to the partner than getting it out of fear of public ridicule. They will help you weed through the tab viagra vendors and find one you can believe for a genuine product, good service and reasonable pricing. It increases sperm count and sperm motility.(Increases quality and quantity of semen. discount buy viagra Over masturbation cause cheap viagra prices impotence, and if not taken care of. PJ Media outlines one of the tech tools used by Google to identify hate speech, a “machine learning tool.” All Americans should be against actual hate speech, but who gets to define what that actually is? And, of course, hate speech, as terrible as it is, is still protected by law. Censoring it opens the door to more significant violations of the First Amendment.
Of course, part of the challenge is a tactic used by progressive sources that loosely defines “hate speech” as anything they disagree with. When highly partisan left-wing organizations such as the Southern Partisan Law Center get to make defining decisions, the result is not going to be nonpartisan.
The left’s anti-free speech activities are generally portrayed as spontaneous reactions to the outrage of the day. In reality, they are frequently well-financed. Cliff Kincaid outlines how billionaire George Soros financed a drive to remove one successful conservative commentator, Glenn Beck, from Fox News. Another example comes from Jonathan Tobin, in Commentary magazine . While demonizing the Koch brothers, who give to conservative causes, Tom Steyer continues to be a major influencer and financial backer of left-wing causes.
National Review has examined the broader picture: “Progressive corporations enforce an ideological monoculture. Dissent and get fired…When government officials target speech because of a speaker’s views, they lose time and again. At the same time, millions of Americans are extraordinarily reluctant to express even the most mainstream of (particularly) social conservative views. They’re convinced that if they do that, they’ll be publicly humiliated, investigated, and perhaps even lose their jobs. They’re convinced that outspoken liberals enjoy greater opportunity in key sectors of the economy, and if conservatives want to thrive, they best keep their opinions to themselves.”