Big Tech

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Racist Twitter Admins permanently banned a Black Cuban GOP congressional candidate.[1]

Big Tech refers to a cartel of several Silicon Valley technology firms, notably Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter and, in Seattle, Amazon for driving technology growth and social change. Big Tech is playing a large role in the decline of patriotism as a value held by Americans.[2] According to Dr. Michael Rectenwald, the end goal of Big Tech companies is corporate socialism.[3]

The Big Tech companies used to be conservative (like back in the 80’s), but over the years became liberal.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled Tech Companies Are Destroying Democracy and the Free Press, the left-wing expert on monopoly power Matt Stoller described Facebook and Google as “global monopolies sitting astride public discourse,” and recounted how bipartisan policy and legal changes designed to whittle away antitrust protections have bestowed the two Big Tech giants with “a radical centralization of power over the flow of information.” And he warns that this unprecedented consolidation of control over our discourse is close to triggering “the collapse of journalism and democracy.”[4]

Microsoft and IBM are sometimes considered Big Tech firms because of their size, and Twitter not for its size but its societal impact. Twitter will likely be bought out by one of the larger firms at some point.

As of 2018, Google and Facebook controlled 60% of all digital advertising revenue, totaling over $60 billion.

2020 Presidential election interference

See also: 2020 Presidential election, Blue state Civil War, Voter fraud, and Fake news in the 2020 presidential election

In August 2020 it was reported that Facebook was planning for the possibility that President Trump or his campaign could try to challenge mail in ballot election results. The New York Times reported that staffers were already putting together contingency plans in the event Trump tries to use Facebook to dispute the vote by declaring the U.S. Postal Service lost mail-in ballots or that other groups interfered with the vote. Facebook officials, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, were holding daily meetings to discuss how to minimize the platform from being used to cast doubts on the results.

The Times noted that one plan would include a “kill switch” to shut down political ads after Election Day. The company officials believe the ads, which Facebook does not check for truthfulness, could be used to disseminate misinformation.

The newspaper said YouTube and Twitter also discussed their own plans if the postelection period becomes problematic.[5] Facebook banned political pages in an attempt to influence elections.[6] A study from the Media Research Center showed that Twitter and Facebook censored President Donald Trump and the president’s affiliated campaign accounts at least 65 times in 2019 ans 2020, while leaving Biden untouched.[7]

Section 230 status and election interference

For first time in American history social media companies took direct action against a major U.S. publisher,[8] The New York Post when it published a story on former VP Biden's collusion with Burisma executives and Ukrainian oligarchs.[9] The Post is among the top five newspapers by circulation in the United States. These actions raised serious questions about many social media platforms future Section 230 immunity status.

Big Tech giants Facebook and Twitter began interfering in the presidential election by blocking links to the article on the Biden-Burisma scandal.[10] Facebook and Twitter have many foreign stockholders.[11] Former James Comey general counsel James A. Baker (DOJ), who was complicit in the Obamagate and FISA abuse scandals, was Twitter's lead counsel during the 2020 Presidential election.[12] Twitter interfered in the election when it blacked-out evidence of former Vice President Biden's collusion with Burisma executives and Ukrainian oligarchs.[13] Yahoo News! reported:

Instead of simply asking pertinent questions, or debunking the [New York] Post’s reporting, a media blackout was initiated. A number of well-known journalists warned colleagues and their sizable social-media audiences not to share the story. By the afternoon, Twitter had joined Facebook in suppressing the article, not only barring its users from sharing it with followers, but barring them sharing it through direct messages as well. It locked the accounts of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, the Post, and many others for retweeting the story.

Twitter initially cited its “Hacked Materials Policy” and a “lack of authoritative reporting” as justification for censoring the Post, one of the most widely read papers in the nation. Though the reliability of the story is yet to be determined, Twitter has offered no evidence that any of the information was illegally obtained. No similar standard was applied when the New York Times published Trump’s tax returns, even though anyone who had legal access to them is likely to have broken the law in sharing them with the Times. Whatever the case, it’s all in the public record now.

A healthy democracy with a properly functioning and independent press would debate, investigate, and rigorously fact check new information. They wouldn’t work to squelch a story. It’s certainly not the job of giant tech companies who claim to function as neutral platforms to decide what news consumers can or can’t handle.

The most generous reading of Twitter and Facebook’s actions is that the rules are evolving, messy, and inadvertently unfair. A less generous — but more plausible — reading is that the tech giants single out specific stories damaging to progressives’ preferred presidential candidate. It will backfire.

For one thing, it further damages the reputation of Big Tech. For another, it renders the industry more susceptible to a new regulatory regime already being championed by some in Congress. Mostly, however, it just makes the story they’re trying to suppress a far bigger deal.[14]

By “fact checking” one candidate and not another, Big Tech gave an enormous in-kind campaign contribution of immeasurable monetary value to the Biden campaign. The New York Post, Gateway Pundit, and Big League Politics all were placed on Twitter's suspension hit lit the final week before election day.[15]

Polling Company survey

The Polling Company surveyed 1,750 Biden voters in seven swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), six of which (all but North Carolina) were called for Biden.[16] Voters’ knowledge of eight news stories were tested. A huge majority (82%) of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of these key items, with five percent saying they were unaware of all eight of the issues we tested.

This lack of information proved crucial: One of every six Biden voters surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories. A shift of this magnitude would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden, and Donald Trump would have comfortably won a second term as president. [17]

  • Burying Biden’s Bad News: The media’s censorship of Biden’s scandals had the strongest impact on this year’s election. According to our survey, more than one-third of Biden voters (35.4%) were unaware of the serious allegations brought against the Democratic nominee by Tara Reade, a former staffer who said Biden sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. If they had known about the allegations, 8.9% said they would have changed their vote — either switching to Trump or a 3rd party candidate, not voting for any presidential candidate, or not voting at all. By itself, this would have flipped all six of the swing states won by Biden (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), giving the President a win with 311 electoral college votes.
Even more Biden voters (45.1%) said they were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter Biden (a story infamously censored by Twitter and Facebook, as well as ignored by the liberal media). According to the poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes.
The ticket’s left-wing ideology was another issue barely mentioned by the national press. A GovTrack analysis found Biden’s running mate, California Senator Kamala Harris, had the most left-wing record of any Senator in 2019 (even more than self-described socialist Bernie Sanders. The poll found that 25.3% of Biden voters said they didn’t know about Senator Harris’s left-wing ideology. If voters had the complete story, it would have led 4.1% of Biden voters to change their vote, flipping Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to Trump. The result would have been a Trump victory, with 295 electoral college votes.
  • Hiding Trump’s Successes: The liberal media also prevented many Biden voters from learning about record-breaking positive economic news in the months leading up to the election. The five pre-election jobs reports from June 5, 2020 to October 2 showed a record 11,161,000 jobs were created in the extraordinary snapback from the pandemic recession. Yet a large number of Biden voters (39.4%) said they didn’t know about this achievement. If they had, 5.4% said they would have changed their vote; this would have swung Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to Trump, who would have won with 295 electoral votes.
On October 29, 2020 the government reported a huge jump in economic growth — 33.1% on an annual basis, double the previous record. Yet nearly half of Biden voters (49.0%) said they had no idea about this record-breaking achievement. Armed with that information, 5.6% said they would have changed their vote, swinging Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and a total of 295 electoral votes to Trump.
The same effect was seen when it came to foreign policy. The President and his team made history by brokering peace agreements with Israel and several of her Arab neighbors — one reason Trump received three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet 43.5% of Biden voters had no idea about these historic agreements. The information would have led five percent of overall Biden voters to change their vote, putting Trump in front in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for a total of 295 electoral votes.
Energy independence was another Trump success. The President took action to start long-stalled pipeline projects and expand drilling offshore and in the Arctic, and it paid off with America becoming a net exporter of oil for the first time in September 2019. More than half (50.5%) of Biden voters said they did not know about this important accomplishment, either. If the information was known by all, 5.8% of Biden’s voters say they would have changed how they voted. This would have changed the outcome in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, putting Trump in front with 295 electoral college votes.
One important issue that did get a lot of coverage in 2020: the coronavirus pandemic. But what made the news every night was criticism of the President and his administration. Lost in the blistering barrage of bad news were successes such as Operation Warp Speed, which even before the election was well on track to deliver 300,000,000 doses of a safe vaccine as soon as next year.
The poll found 36.1% of Biden voters said they did not know about the administration’s key role in promoting vaccine research through Operation Warp Speed. If they had, 5.3% told us they would have abandoned Biden, flipping Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, giving the President 295 electoral votes.
  • Summary: Looking at all eight of these issues together, the poll found that a total of 17% of Biden’s voters said they would have changed their vote if they had been aware of one or more of these important stories. This would have moved every one of the swing states into Trump’s column, some by a huge margin. The President would have trounced Biden in the electoral college, 311 to 227.
In Pennsylvania, 15% of Biden voters said they would have defected. Using the reported vote totals as of noon on November 19, 2020 this would have reduced his total by 518,204 votes, flipping the state to Trump. In Michigan, the percentage who would have left Biden was 14%, deducting 392,966 from his tally and flipping that state, too.
In Georgia, 15% of Biden’s voters say they would have defected based on full information, taking 370,838 votes out of his column, and putting Trump comfortably ahead. In Arizona, 21% say they would have changed their vote, deducting 351,150 from Biden’s column and putting Trump in front there, too.
In Wisconsin, Biden would have lost 13% of his voters, taking away 211,987 from his column. In Nevada, the percentage of those who would have left Biden was 18%, or 126,627 voters. Such a shift would have put both of those states in Trump’s column, too.
In the final state polled, North Carolina, 21% of Biden’s voters say they would have changed their minds, deducting 563,703 votes from his total and significantly bolstering Trump’s margin of victory in that state.

Coronavirusa and Communist Chinese misinformation

In the case of the Coronavirus, Big Tech used the Communist Chinese-controlled World Health Organization (WHO) as an “authority” on health related matters instead of official health guidelines from the President of the United States.[18] This is a matter of national security and public health.

Even after the Biden-Burisma scandal was exposed, Twitter continued to censor official White House policy experts. On October 18, 2020 Twitter removed a post from White House pandemic task force member Dr. Scott Atlas, accusing him of violating its policy about “misleading information.” A Twitter spokesperson confirmed that the post was removed. According to the spokesperson, the Twitter policy that Atlas allegedly violated prohibits sharing false or misleading content related to the pandemic.[19]

FEC disclosure exemptions

Political advertising regarding federal elections and candidates that is purchased for appearance on radio, television and print generally must adhere to Federal Election Commission rules requiring clear disclosure of the committee or donor paying for the advertisements. During 2011, Google and Facebook hired Marxist operative Marc Elias to help them obtain an exemption from this requirement for political advertising on their platforms. Elias argued the restrictions were not practical for his clients, with FEC commissioners ultimately voting 4-2 in favor of the exemption for Google and deadlocking 3-3 on the request regarding Facebook.[20]

Facebook continued to operate as if exempt from disclosure rules. During the 2016 U.S. general election, $100,000 worth of Russian-backed and undisclosed advertisements intended to influence voters were purchased on Facebook with another $4,700 spent by Russian sources on Google political advertisements. In October 2017, following the controversy that ensued regarding Russian interference in the 2016 elections, both Republican and Democratic Senators advocated for legislation to require Facebook and Google to adhere to the same disclosure rules as other media.

Anti-Trust and Section 230

See also: Anti-trust law

Some proposals to curb excesses of social media involve using anti-trust to break them up or for increasing regulation on the companies. These proposals are primarily offered by democrats[21] [22] [23] [24] and would benefit the deep state. There is some question as to if this approach would make censorship even worse.

Another proposal is to alter or repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which would dramatically increase the amount of litigation against these companies if they didn't put an end to these practices.[25][26] This approach is being pursued by several conservatives including Josh Hawley and Louie Gohmert.

Information control

In 2018, the Pew Research Center found that “about two-thirds of U.S. adults (68%) get news on social media sites. One-in-five get news there often.“ The combination of Facebook, Google and Twitter controls the information received by huge numbers of Americans, Pew found. “Facebook is still far and away the site Americans most commonly use for news. About four-in-ten Americans (43%) get news on Facebook. The next most commonly used site for news is YouTube [owned by Google], with 21% getting news there, followed by Twitter at 12%.”[27]

While Twitter still falls short of Facebook in terms of number of users, a 2019 report found that “Twitter remains the leading social network among journalists at 83%.” Censoring a story from Twitter thus has disproportionate impact by hiding it from the people who determine and shape the news.[28]


See also: Censorship, Publisher vs. Platform, and Sec. 230

Big Tech, including Google[29] and Facebook,[30] engaged in censorship of conservatives and Christians.[31][32]

In August 2018, multiple social media giants, with the support of the Left, mainstream media and Democrats,[33] colluded to ban Alex Jones's InfoWars from their sites simply because of his political views.[34] In response to public criticism of the conspiring social media platforms' actions, leftists made dismissive excuses for those companies on social media and in the liberal media, claiming that they are "free to do what they want" because of their status as privately owned companies, not realizing that the collusion of those platforms to censor and ban InfoWars and other conservative companies and individuals for their political views potentially violate antitrust laws.[35] In February 2019, removed 22 pages related to Jones and InfoWars.[36]

Facebook banned several people whose views it opposed, labeling them "dangerous," even though they did not violate the site's terms[37] – Facebook continued allowing actual left-wing hate speech to go unpunished, however.[38] Additionally, Apple News banned LifeSiteNews from its platform for "intolerance."[39] The issue of Big Tech censorship hit a fever pitch in 2019 when Facebook and Instagram banned prominent alt-lite figures Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos without reason.

In June 2020, Gavin McInnes was banned from YouTube, and Twitter banned Katie Hopkins and a popular pro-Trump meme creator known as Carpe Donktum.[40] YouTube also banned Stefan Molyneux,[41] as did Twitter in July.[42] In July 2020, anti-establishment Republicans confronted Big Tech CEOs in the halls of Congress for censorship of conservatives and of right-wing or politically incorrect voices.[43][44][45][46][47]

Hate speech

Vox Recode reported:
Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are banking on developing artificial intelligence technology to help stop the spread of hateful speech on their networks. The idea is that complex algorithms that use natural language processing will flag racist or violent speech faster and better than human beings possibly can. Doing this effectively is more urgent than ever in light of recent mass shootings and violence linked to hate speech online. But two new studies show that AI trained to identify hate speech may actually end up amplifying racial bias. In one study, researchers found that leading AI models for processing hate speech were one-and-a-half times more likely to flag tweets as offensive or hateful when they were written by African Americans, and 2.2 times more likely to flag tweets written in African American English (which is commonly spoken by black people in the US).[48]

Covid pandemic

See also: CCP global pandemic

When the Chinese coronavirus first struck the United States in the Spring of 2020, Facebook banned speech or contrary scientific discussion regarding lockdown orders, business closures, and forced layoffs. YouTube took down videos, and Twitter banned all users who would dare question the mainstream media COVID narrative.

By mid October Forbes reported that "Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google all began scooping up New York City commercial real estate after prices have plummeted due to the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic."[49]

Big Tech and Fox News

The Fox News Channel seems to have colluded with Big Tech.

In January 2019, Fox News heaped praise on Microsoft's NewsGuard, a browser extension which disproportionately targets conservative and anti-establishment sources with poor ratings and then libels those sources as "fake news." Fox News, on the other hand, is considered a legitimate source of news.[50] BuzzFeed News is also considered reputable, while even stories from The Daily Wire are frequently downgraded by NewsGuard.[51] Fox News permanently banned The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles in September of that year.[1]

In the same month that the network profusely defended NewsGuard, their website asserted that a YouTube algorithm change very clearly designed to stifle independent content creators and to censor the Alternative Influence Network, as reported by Breitbart News at the time,[52] was simply intended to direct audiences away from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation."[53] According to Bloomberg Businessweek, by July 2020, Fox News' YouTube channel gained tens of millions of views while even the channels of massive leftist corporate networks CNN and MSNBC declined in views.[54] In June 2020, Gavin McInnes and Stefan Molyneux were permanently banned from YouTube, which Fox News refrained from covering.


In February 2021 Poland reacted to Big Tech's progressive and fascist tendencies by passing a law that would fine Big Tech platforms up $13.5 million for censoring conservative, Christian, and traditional values postings. Justice Minister Sebastian Kaleta, the author of the law noted,

"Poland spent 45 years under communism, and that experience has taught it the value of free speech and that when the country sees these disturbing new trends toward censorship, the red light goes on."[55]

Big Tech companies


See also: Google

Alphabet Inc. is the parent company of Google, which also owns YouTube, Android, The Groundwork and dozens of other companies. The Groundwork in 2015 boasted it could influence the vote in any democratic election anywhere in the world as much as 25%,[56] highlighting the Search engine manipulation effect. In an article titled How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election in August 2015 Politico warned Google "can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated... In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent".[57]

Dr. Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology testified before Congress in 2019 that Google bias and meddling had shifted "between 2.6 million and up to 10.4 million votes" to Hillary Clinton.[58] Epstein stated in his testimony before the Judiciary Senate Committee that his research indicated that Google had been manipulating national elections as early as 2015, and has even insinuated that they had also manipulated the results of the 2018 midterm elections.[59][60]

In June 2019, Project Veritas released an undercover video in which a Google executive admitted that the company was working, through its policies and products, to prevent "the next Trump situation."[61] The video had over one million views in the first 24 hours (available in External link section, below). Google subsequently moved to censor the video from its platforms.[62]


See also: Apple Inc.

Apple CEO Tim Cook once told global warming sceptics to dump their Apple stock.[63]


See also: Microsoft
Microsoft logo.svg

Microsoft has long been a promoter of progressive causes, such as Proposition 74 in Washington State, which legalized same sex marriage.[64] They have also long been involved with the Common Core standards, which are promoting politics under the disguise of education.[65]


See also: Facebook
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: openly complicit in the Marxist coup plot to subvert American's constitutional rights.

Facebook has a large political influence because of its size.[66] Facebook once declared it will never use its product to influence how people on the platform vote.[67]

98% of political donations from Facebook employees went to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.[68] Facebook tampered with news feeds during the 2010 Midterm elections in a 61-million-person social experiment to see how Facebook could impact the real-world voting behavior of millions of people.[69] In 2012, Facebook developed a tool called 'voter megaphone' raising questions about its use and ability to influence elections. Facebook secretly tampered with 1.9 million user's news feeds. Zuckerberg has involved himself in politics in the 2016 presidential election. He has publicly called out positions held by Donald Trump as wrong. Facebook employees have asked if they should try to stop a Trump presidency.[70]

Facebook banned new political ads in the week before the 2020 Presidential election, curtailing a highly effective conduit for raising last-minute money and pinpointing messages to voters.

The mammoth social network with 2.7 billion users worldwide has become an essential tool for political advertisers — raking in more than $100 million from the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Joe Biden alone. Unlike TV or print media, Facebook allows campaigns to rapidly respond to events, sometimes in a day or less.

"The last week of the election is the most important week when it comes to messaging," said Tara McGowan, co-founder of digital-first Democratic outfit ACRONYM, adding that "most voters in this country do not tune in and start paying attention or making their plans to vote until the final days of an election."[71]

By October 29, Facebook had already rejected 2.2 million ads and blocked 120,000 posts citing "election misinformation."[72] While mainstream fake news media are allowed to churn baseless scandals and smears in an October Surprise, President Trump would be restricted from responding.

In August 2020 it was reported that Facebook was planning for the possibility that President Trump or his campaign could try to challenge mail in ballot election results. The New York Times reported that staffers were already putting together contingency plans in the event Trump tries to use Facebook to dispute the vote by declaring the U.S. Postal Service lost mail-in ballots or that other groups interfered with the vote. Facebook officials, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, were holding daily meetings to discuss how to minimize the platform from being used to cast doubts on the results. The Times noted that one plan would include a “kill switch” to shut down political ads after Election Day. The company officials believe the ads, which Facebook does not check for truthfulness, could be used to disseminate misinformation.

Anna Makanju is the Facebook executive in charge of “election integrity on the platform”;[73] previously, she was the special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia, which includes Ukraine, to former US Vice President Joe Biden. The Facebook executive who blocked all of the negative evidence of Hunter and Joe Biden’s corrupt activity in Biden-Burisma scandal is the same person who was coordinating the corrupt activity between the Biden family payoffs and Ukraine.[74]


Jack Dorsey.
See also: Twitter

In May 2020, Twitter and its CEO Jack Dorsey came under heavy criticism for the company's recent decision to begin inserting "fact-checking" links into the tweets made by President Trump, with the company claiming those tweets to be "misleading" despite the exposure by Project Veritas of Democrat-led voter fraud proving otherwise,[75][76] after Trump tweeted about recent concerns over the intent by the Democrat Party to commit voter fraud at the federal, state and local levels through the use of mail-in ballots during the 2020 Presidential election.[77] The "fact-checking" links in question lead to an "information" page containing links from liberal media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, all of which indulge in publishing factually-devoid and misleading fake news hit pieces and opinion pieces masquerading as "news" regarding the mail-in vote scandal[78] to fit their anti-Trump narratives.[79] This decision also had the inadvertent outcome of embarrassing Twitter employee Yoel Roth, who was outed as having falsely accused Trump officials, including Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway, of being "Nazis" in past tweets he posted.[80] Trump, who accused Twitter of openly trying to interfere with free elections and illegally impeding free speech, responded to Twitter's tampering with his tweets by announcing that he may place Twitter and similar social media companies under heavy regulation or shut them down altogether to punish them for their extreme liberal bias and illegal censorship (in violation of the First Amendment) of conservative speech and thought.[81] Republican Florida senator Marco Rubio also weighed in on the controversy, saying that Twitter could lose its liability protections for choosing to act as a publisher by exercising editorial control through its tampering with Trump's tweets.[82][83]

Twitter imposed new dracoian censorship measures aimed at conservative users in October 2020.[84] One example is labeling criticism of mail-in balloting as ‘misinformation’. James Woods commented the new labeling is clear:

“They are closing down conservative voices completely now. Be prepared that you will no longer be able to see most of my communications, if indeed my account remains open at all. Sorry, folks, but it’s over. And they couldn’t care less what you think. This is the face of tyranny.”[85]

For first time in American history social media companies took direct action against a major U.S. publisher,[86] The New York Post when it published a story on Biden-Burisma scandal.[87] The Post is among the top five newspapers by circulation in the United States. These actions raised serious questions about many social media platforms future Section 230 immunity status.

Twitter and Facebook interfered in the 2020 presidential election by blocking links to the article.[88][89] Twitter and Facebook both have many foreign stockholders.[90] Twitter banned people who posted The New York Post story,[91] including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for sharing the article,[92] locked the Trump Campaign account less than 3 weeks before the 2020 Presidential election.[93] Rep. Jim Jordan posted the Biden-Burisma story on a federal government website after Twitter censored the House Judiciary GOP, at which point the link was promptly censored by Twitter.[94] Wikipedia editors censored the Hunter Biden bombshell, and called the New York Post an ‘unreliable’ source.[95] Google also was reported to be meddling in U.S. Senate elections.[96] The Senate Judiciary Committee announced that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey would be subpoenaed to explain the meddling.[97] Former James Comey general counsel James A. Baker (DOJ), who was complicit in the Obamagate and FISA abuse scandals, is Twitter's lead counsel.[98] The RNC made a formal complaint to the Federal Elections Commission which reads in part,

"Respondent’s feud with President Trump is well known, as are its frequent efforts to censor the President’s tweets and the “shadow banning” of prominent Republicans, including RNC’s Chair, Ronna McDaniel, and several Republican Members of Congress. Respondent’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, and other senior executives are prolific donors to the Democrat party and other left-wing causes, with 98.7% of the company’s total political contributions going to Democrats. In addition, there appears to be a revolving door between the Biden campaign and the company, with Respondent’s Public Policy Director recently leaving to join the Biden transition team and Senator Kamala Harris’s former Press Secretary now serving as Respondent’s Senior Communications Manager."[99]

By “fact checking” one candidate and not another, Big Tech gave an enormous in-kind campaign contribution of immeasurable monetary value to the Biden campaign.


See also:
Langley's 7th floor is a reference to CIA headquarters. was founded by Jeff Bezos. In 2013 the Washington Post was acquired by Jeff Bezos. That same year, Amazon also obtained a CIA contract worth $600 million, at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post. The Institute for Public Accuracy released a statement condemning the move.[100]

When the main shareholder in one of the very largest corporations in the world benefits from a massive contract with the CIA on the one hand, and that same billionaire owns the Washington Post on the other hand, there are serious problems. The Post is unquestionably the political paper of record in the United States, and how it covers governance sets the agenda for the balance of the news media. Citizens need to know about this conflict of interest in the columns of the Post itself.

The Nation magazine also condemned the conflict of interest. It was reported in September 2017 that Amazon had deleted numerous one-star reviews of Hillary Clinton's book What Happened.[101]

In 2018, Amazon announced it would raise its minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour, though this was a political stunt, as most of its workers already made over $15 an hour, and it was transitioning to replacing human labor with robots.[102]

Among other left-wing policies, Amazon banned several books that helped people escape homosexuality.[103]

During the 2020 leftwing, anti-capitalist riots the Amazon warehouse in Redlands, California was burned down.[104] Amazon placed the slogan, "Black Lives Matter" on storefronts.[105] was recently listed as one of numerous leftist-controlled companies that have gone "woke" and now support the criminal rioters of Antifa and Black Lives Matter in the wake of the 2020 leftist riots.[106]

Many have condemned the massive corporation for its pervasive and widespread corruption.


See also: Instagram


See also: NewsGuard


See also: Reddit

In 2019, Reddit banned a 700,000-member group on its website called "The_Donald," which supported President Trump.[107] In August 2020 Reddit shut down in mid-livestream a broadcast by Bill Binney[108] related to the fake news allegation of Russian hacking of the DNC during the 2016 presidential election.[109][110]


See also: YouTube

Controversy arose in 2006 in conservative circles after people such as Michelle Malkin claimed that YouTube censored conservative content.[111] This led the creation of a pair of video-sharing websites: QubeTV, an alternative site whose origins are reminiscent of the creation of Conservapedia by people who believed Wikipedia® to be liberal, and the Christian alternative, GodTube, which has been renamed "Tangle".[112]

In 2020 YouTube was listed as one of numerous leftist-controlled companies that have gone "woke" and supports the criminal axtivities of Antifa and the Black Lives Matter organization in the wake of the 2020 leftist riots.[113]

In 2021, YouTube censored their own most popular independent content creator PewDiePie by removing one of his videos.[114]

As White House videos of the Biden regime continued to show Dislikes outnumbering Likes by a factor of 6 and 8, Youtube eliminated the Dislike feature.[115]

See also


  2. Wright, Morgan (November 28, 2018). High tech’s globalism is slowly killing patriotism. The Hill. Retrieved November 28, 2018.
  3. Svab, Petr (October 15, 2019). The Endgame of Big Tech Is Corporate Socialism, Says Liberal Studies Scholar. The Epoch Times. Retrieved October 15, 2019.
  6. Duke, Selwyn (May 15, 2019). Big Tech Tyranny: Facebook Is at It Again, Trying to Sway an Election. The New American. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
  9. *
  11. "Finalized January of 2011, the transaction included a $450 million investment from Goldman Sachs, $50 million from DST, and $1 billion from unnamed foreign investors."
  20. Vogel, Kenneth P.; and Kang, Cecilia. “Senators Demand Online Ad Disclosures as Tech Lobby Mobilizes.” New York Times. October 19, 2017.
  21. Bernie Sanders becomes latest 2020 candidate to call for Facebook breakup
  22. Democrats’ Newest Line: Break Up Or Regulate Facebook
  23. More Democrats are considering a breakup of Facebook
  24. There’s a New Bill to Regulate Facebook and Google’s Data Collection
  26. Ted Cruz made it clear he supports repealing tech platforms’ safe harbor
  29. Jasper, William F. (August 20, 2019). Big Tech Under Fire. The New American. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  30. Shaw, C. Mitchell (August 20, 2019). Facebook Censorship & Hypocrisy. The New American. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  31. Bomberger, Ryan (May 10, 2019). Big Tech’s separate and unequal treatment of Christians and conservatives. LifeSiteNews (from the Radiance Foundation). Retrieved May 10, 2019.
  32. Xiao, Bowen (July 24, 2019). Young Conservatives Feel They Can’t Express Themselves on Social Media. The Epoch Times. Retrieved July 24, 2019.
  33. Multiple references:
  34. Multiple references: See also:
  35. The Open-Market Economy of Ideas at Conservative News and Views
  36. Bowden, John (February 5, 2019). Facebook removes 22 pages linked to Alex Jones, InfoWars. The Hill. Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  37. Multiple references: See also:
  38. Multiple references:
  39. BREAKING: Apple News bans LifeSite without warning: says it ‘shows intolerance’. LifeSiteNews. July 31, 2019. Retrieved July 31, 2019.
  56. THE GROUNDWORK The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that’s working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, Adam Pasick & Tim Fernholz, Quartz, October 09, 2015.
  57. How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election, Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser, By Robert Epstein, Politico, August 19, 2015
  59. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Epstein_testimony_PDF
  60. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Epstein_testimony_YouTube
  61. Multiple references: See also:
  62. Multiple references:
  63. Tim Cook tells climate change sceptics to ditch Apple shares
  64. Who's funding the fight over gay marriage in Washington state?
  65. After Gates donates to Pearson, firm teams with Microsoft
  66. Bokhari, Allum (November 27, 2019). Bokhari: How Zuckerberg Became America’s (Unappointed) Editor-in-Chief. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  67. Facebook Says it Doesn't Try to Influence How People Vote, Gizmodo, April 15, 2016
  68. Facebook – self-appointed arbiter of “free speech” – tells Tea Party no more organizing, Before It's News, June 2, 2011
  69. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization
  70. Facebook Employees Asked Mark Zuckerberg If They Should Try to Stop a Donald Trump Presidency, Gizmodo, April 15, 2016
  75. "How to Commit Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale": Part II of Project Veritas Investigation into Clinton Network at Breitbart News Network
  76. Rigging the Election - Video II: Mass Voter Fraud at Project Veritas Action YouTube channel
  77. 'Leave our employees out of this': Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responds to Trump broadside at the Washington Examiner
  78. "Twitter Falsely Undermined the Truth... Thereby Misleading the American Public" – Senior Legal Adviser to @TeamTrump Responds to Twitter’s "Blatantly Partisan" Attack on President at the Gateway Pundit
  79. Twitter slaps fact-checking alert on Trump tweets at the Washington Examiner
  80. Twitter's chief "fact-checker" called Trump officials "Nazis" at WorldNetDaily
  81. 'Close them down': Trump threatens to regulate or shutter social media platforms after Twitter fact-check at the Washington Examiner
  82. Rubio warns Twitter after it puts fact-check label on Trump tweet at the Washington Examiner
  83. U.S. senator warns Twitter could lose shield from liability at WorldNetDaily
  87. *
  90. "Finalized January of 2011, the transaction included a $450 million investment from Goldman Sachs, $50 million from DST, and $1 billion from unnamed foreign investors."
  101. Richardson, Bradford (September 13, 2017). One-star reviews of Hillary Clinton’s ‘What Happened’ disappear on Amazon. The Washington Times. Retrieved September 19, 2017.
  102. Adelmann, Bob (October 3, 2018). Amazon’s New $15 Minimum Wage Is a Shrewd Political Move. The New American. Retrieved October 4, 2018.
  103. Nicolosi, Joseph (July 11, 2019). These books helped thousands quit homosexuality. Amazon just banned them. LifeSiteNews (from The Daily Signal). Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  106. Here Are The Companies That Support Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Want You Dead at
  107. Bokhari, Allum (October 23, 2019). Reddit Won’t Lift ‘Quarantine’ on Pro-Trump Community. Breitbart News. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
  111. "Michelle Malkin |  » Banned on YouTube".
  112. GodTube is Born Again as MySpace-Like Tangle Mashable
  113. Here Are The Companies That Support Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Want You Dead at
  115. YouTube To Remove ‘Dislike’ Feature As Biden WH Content Continues To See Likes Massively Trail Dislikes, Natalie Winters, National Pulse, MARCH 30, 2021.

External links