On November 25, Twitter suspended the personal account of Pennsylvania Republican Senator Doug Mastriano, who sponsored the hearings on the Pennsylvania election.
In response, Mastriano fired back via his official account: “This kind of censorship is unacceptable in the United States” and “Twitter suspended personal accounts to prevent me from posting on official accounts – trying to silence us. “
On the evening of November 26, President Trump tweeted, “Wow! Twitter banned the very respected Pennsylvania Senator Doug Mastriano, just after he successfully led a hearing on Election 2020 fraud. They are colluding with fake news to silence the truth. Can’t let that happen. That’s what communist countries do!”
He also wrote, “Big Tech and the Fake News Media have teamed up to suppress (speech). Freedom of the press no longer exists…that’s why they refuse to cover the 2020 election and the real news about Hunter (Biden).”
Unsurprisingly, the president’s tweet was red-tagged again: “Controversial allegations of election fraud.”
Also on November 25, prominent attorney Sidney Powell filed a lawsuit in Georgia, alleging “massive election fraud” that changed the outcome of the state’s 2020 election. Subsequently, her website (defendingtherepublic.org) was blocked by Twitter. Twitter users who tried to share the link or send the URL received a “try again” message. Also at the bottom of the page is the message: “We were unable to complete this request because the link has been determined to be ‘potentially harmful’ by Twitter or one of our partners.
Twitter’s two blocking actions have only one purpose: to block evidence of election fraud from coming to light. Clearly, the social media giant’s position is clear: suppress free speech, suppress the truth, and cooperate with fraudsters and undermine the integrity of elections.
For now, Senator Mastriano’s account and Lawyer Powell’s website are back to normal on Twitter, most likely because Twitter was pressured to change its approach. But it’s not over.
Twitter needs to answer the following questions
- On what basis does Twitter refer to Attorney Powell’s website as “potentially harmful” and what is “potentially harmful”?
- Who are Twitter’s “partners”? Did this “partner” give Twitter instructions to block tweets and block postings?
- Why did Twitter suspend Representative Mastroiannou’s personal account for a time after the hearing?
- Early on November 7, President Trump sent out several tweets questioning election fraud, all of which were deleted. Twitter warned at the time that “some or all of the content shared in this tweet is controversial and may be misleading about how to participate in the election or other civic processes.”
Prior to the president’s tweet, on November 4 and 5 in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada, large numbers of people traveled to local election centers to protest election fraud, with many giving on-the-spot accounts of the fraud they had experienced.
Twitter must explain how it can claim that the President’s words were controversial and potentially misleading about the election. In fact, it is the assertion that there is no election fraud that is misleading and deceiving voters.
At the Pennsylvania hearing, attorney Giuliani denounced the tech companies and the leftist media, saying, “This election has been marked by an unprecedented level of speech censorship by the tech giants, the big networks, the big corporations, to an unbelievable degree. They only allow one side’s voice to be heard and reject the other side’s voice. It’s like they’re afraid of the American people knowing the facts. We’ll find out who they are and what they’re up to.”
A naked double standard
On Oct. 28, Acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan tweeted a video of the U.S.-Mexico border wall with the text, “Every mile of border wall is helping us by stopping gang members, murderers, sex offenders and drugs from entering our country. It’s a fact, border walls work.”
Twitter removed its tweets directly. It sent an email to Morgan saying its account had been suspended for “hateful conduct. The email read: “You may not promote violence or threaten or harass others because of race, original nationality, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious beliefs, age, physical impairment, or serious illness.”
Morgan told the conservative magazine the Federalist afterward that he had never had any problems in the past with tweeting about the border wall and the work of border agents in maintaining national security. He wondered why Twitter had turned around on policy or algorithms.
Twitter clearly has a double standard when it comes to “acts of hate. For example, on November 7, far-left journalist Jennifer Rubin tweeted, “Any Republican who advocates rejecting election results, or calls for disobedience to the will of the voters, or creates unfounded allegations of fraud, must never hold office, serve on a corporate board, or teach on campus, or Being accepted by ‘polite’ society. We have a list.”
Rubin’s statement is a blatant threat and hate-mongering against a huge number of conservative American citizens, simply because they don’t accept election fraud. Why did Twitter release her tweets?
Behind Twitter’s Shift
Since the closure of the New York Post’s account on October 14, Twitter has been swinging the stick of censorship. From the Hunt “computer-gate” scandal to the U.S.-Mexico border wall to election fraud, Twitter has forgotten its identity as an information platform and has suddenly become a referee, evaluating news as true or false, right or wrong, and repeatedly shutting down or suspending accounts to make arbitrary comments. Sadly, its standards are not in line with facts and moral principles, and it is simply misleading the public and swaying public opinion.
On November 19, attorney Sidney Powell made the important point at a press conference that there are extensive global interests behind the media organization. Twitter joined the anti-Trump camp, ignoring the facts, precisely for the sake of profit. With whom can it align itself to maximize its profits?
On May 11, 2012, Twitter announced that Fei-Fei Li, formerly Google’s chief cloud expert, had been appointed as an independent director of Twitter, and on May 17, the “cold eye of finance” tweeted a video commentary that gave an in-depth background of Li’s collaboration with the Communist Party. The three Twitter accounts of “Financial Cold Eyes” were blocked, and the alternate tweets were warned. At the time, one user said, “I really don’t understand why, in today’s growing trend of anti-communist sentiment, Twitter is bucking the trend by appointing someone who probably has a red background.”
Less than six months later, during the U.S. election, Twitter’s performance answered this question. Twitter did not take the risk of hiring a controversial person, but rather the appointment could be beneficial to Twitter, or rather, Twitter and the “red background” were already one in the same.
For now, that “red background” may be what Twitter calls “our partner. It’s only logical that Twitter is pro-Biden and anti-Trump.
Social Media Censorship Harms the Public and the State
In a tweet on the evening of November 26, President Trump said, “In the interest of national security, Section 230 must be terminated immediately!!!” He was referring to Article 230 of the Communications Code Act, which provides corporate immunity for social media such as Twitter and Facebook.
This provision protects social media from being sued for the content posted on their platforms or for the removal of portions of that content. Companies like Twitter and Facebook have used this “umbrella” to do whatever they want, even going so far as to antagonize truth and morality.
Looking back at Twitter’s series of unfair operations, the outside world sees that the influence of technology giants is causing profound harm when social media abandon their standards of objectivity and impartiality.
First, it shields the truth, confuses the public, and deprives them of their freedom of speech and right to information. Mark Morgan, the acting director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, who has been blocked by Twitter, said, “The American people end up not hearing the truth because at Twitter, there are people pushing buttons based on their beliefs to prevent the truth from coming out.”
Second, by siding with the hate-mongering, alleged fraudsters and letting their views and disinformation go free, while cracking down on true patriots such as presidents, officials and ordinary Internet users who track down and spread the truth, Twitter is promoting evil and suppressing good, and eroding social morality.
Third, Hunter Biden used his father’s vice presidency to make huge profits from his dealings with the Chinese Communist Party and Ukrainian authorities. Some of these deals were suspected of endangering U.S. national security and treason. In addition, the evidence suggests that the election fraud may have been rigged by a foreign power, and that the fraudster is suspected of colluding with a foreign power to sabotage the election. Therefore, by defending Hunter, opening the way for the Joe Biden campaign, and suppressing revelations about the Biden scandal and election fraud, Twitter is providing cover for criminals and is tantamount to conspiring with them to compromise U.S. national security.
In light of the above, the U.S. government should immediately launch an investigation into the serious misconduct at Twitter. Those huge organizations that have betrayed the interests of the U.S. should not continue to behave like a megalomaniacal perversion of right and wrong.
Recent Comments