https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...50206.html
So now the left censorship groups have put RealClearPolitics on its hit list as a very high risk site. Why? Because it includes both liberal and conservative viewpoints. They will show Vox, Salon, Breitbart and everything in between




"...Nowhere else online can you regularly find the voices you agree with paired with voices saying the opposite thing about the same issue.

This makes RCP and its sister channels the straw that stirs the drink of American media. (For that matter, speaking of Reggie, RCP could also be the Mr. October of American media, given the go-to nature of the RCP Polling Average.)

Our country is healthier when citizens and policymakers have the capacity to think outside of their political tribe. This helps public debate become a bit more rational. A bit less heated. And much more constructive.

I always thought our business model was the cure to polarization and hyper-partisanship. Instead, as it turns out, viewpoint diversity has become a cause for being blacklisted in advertising markets. The concept of so-called “disinformation” has been weaponized as a means of censoring news outlets—including RealClearPolitics.

Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a British NGO that advises advertisers and search engine companies — and that has been supported by the U.S. State Department — labeled RealClearPolitics as a high-risk news site for disinformation, one of the top-10 riskiest in America. All because we include voices they don’t like. That we pair such voices with those they agree with doesn’t seem to matter to them.

Designated high-risk, RCP was put on GDI’s advertising blacklist. Ad revenue has cratered by millions in recent years...."

One of myriad methods of censorship in this country. The key in the US not outright banning things, but doing everything possible to make them less accessible. They de platform you from app stores, they pressure banks not to do business with you, they threaten the companies hosting your site or providing email services to your company, they demonetize you from the networks that provide advertising revenue, and on and on.

It may not be legally defined as “censorship” in the sense you are not allowed to say what you want, but it is an organized effort to control the public narrative by excluding dissenting voices. It’s more sinister than a legal ban because it cannot be challenged, happens largely under the radar, and is an act of collusion between multiple sources of power that share the same interests.

It isn’t the “government” controlling speech, it’s the entities who control govenrment using their own power to contain speech. If these entities can legally use the government/legal system to accomplish their goals, they absolutely will do that. However, in cases where it would be illegal, they have other levers of power and do the same thing by another method.

They don’t put people in jail, they just build walls around them while telling them they are free.

(12-16-2023 08:52 PM)Todor Wrote:  The key in the US not outright banning things, but do doing everything possible to make them less accessible. They de platform you from app stores, they pressure banks not to do business with you, they threaten the companies hosting your site or providing email services to your company, they demonetize you from the networks that provide advertising revenue, and on and on.

It may not be legally defined as “censorship” in the sense you are not allowed to say what you want, but it is an organized effort to control the public narrative by excluding dissenting voices. It’s more sinister than a legal ban because it cannot be challenged, happens largely under the radar, and is an act of collusion between multiple sources of power that share the same interests.

It isn’t the “government” controlling speech, it’s the entities who control govenrment using their own power to contain speech. If these entities can legally use the government/legal system to accomplish their goals, they absolutely will do that. However, in cases where it would be illegal, they have other levers of power and do the same thing by another method.

They don’t put people in jail, they just build walls around them while telling them they are free.

This. Well said.

(12-16-2023 08:52 PM)Todor Wrote:  One of myriad methods of censorship in this country. The key in the US not outright banning things, but doing everything possible to make them less accessible. They de platform you from app stores, they pressure banks not to do business with you, they threaten the companies hosting your site or providing email services to your company, they demonetize you from the networks that provide advertising revenue, and on and on.

It may not be legally defined as “censorship” in the sense you are not allowed to say what you want, but it is an organized effort to control the public narrative by excluding dissenting voices. It’s more sinister than a legal ban because it cannot be challenged, happens largely under the radar, and is an act of collusion between multiple sources of power that share the same interests.

It isn’t the “government” controlling speech, it’s the entities who control govenrment using their own power to contain speech. If these entities can legally use the government/legal system to accomplish their goals, they absolutely will do that. However, in cases where it would be illegal, they have other levers of power and do the same thing by another method.

They don’t put people in jail, they just build walls around them while telling them they are free.

Its very sinister. Now it can be challenged. Its an illegal boycott. Its just really hard to prove and expensive. Most people don't have the time, money and energy.

(12-17-2023 11:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2023 08:52 PM)Todor Wrote:  One of myriad methods of censorship in this country. The key in the US not outright banning things, but doing everything possible to make them less accessible. They de platform you from app stores, they pressure banks not to do business with you, they threaten the companies hosting your site or providing email services to your company, they demonetize you from the networks that provide advertising revenue, and on and on.

It may not be legally defined as “censorship” in the sense you are not allowed to say what you want, but it is an organized effort to control the public narrative by excluding dissenting voices. It’s more sinister than a legal ban because it cannot be challenged, happens largely under the radar, and is an act of collusion between multiple sources of power that share the same interests.

It isn’t the “government” controlling speech, it’s the entities who control govenrment using their own power to contain speech. If these entities can legally use the government/legal system to accomplish their goals, they absolutely will do that. However, in cases where it would be illegal, they have other levers of power and do the same thing by another method.

They don’t put people in jail, they just build walls around them while telling them they are free.

Its very sinister. Now it can be challenged. Its an illegal boycott. Its just really hard to prove and expensive. Most people don't have the time, money and energy.

If you do dodge all of their bullets, they will pour a ton of money into a lawsuit against you in a specially chosen jurisdiction where it’s relatively easy to win a civil suit against you and bankrupt you with a judgement for hundreds of millions of dollars based on their hurt feelings. Another nasty tactic.