Daniel Greenfield, Facebook Bias!
One of the ways Big Tech and media censorship has been justified is coping with the problem of “hyperpartisan” media.
The category, like most disinformation categories, is wholly artificial and the lines around it have been carefully drawn to mostly select conservative outlets with a handful of very obnoxiously lefty pages, like Occupy Democrats, which is a joke even on the Left, dragooned in. But what’s important isn’t as much what’s included as what’s excluded. And while Facebook was suppressing so-called hyperpartisan media, it was boosting CNN, the New York Times, and NPR… partisan outlets.
Or to put it another way, the way the lines were drawn left none or almost no pro-Trump media in the wire, but filled it with pro-Biden media.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg changed the platform’s algorithm following the 2020 election to highlight outlets like CNN, the New York Times and NPR, according to a report from the Times on Tuesday morning. At the same time, Facebook moved to make “hyperpartisan pages,” as the Times put it, like Breitbart and Occupy Democrats less visible in users’ News Feeds, three people familiar with Zuckerberg’s decision told the NYT.
Facebook claimed that it was an “emergency response” to the usual “crisis of democracy” posturing. Temporary suppression of political opponents in response to a crisis of democracy is how you spell “coup” in much of the world.
Here’s a simple cheat sheet. If your response to a disputed election is censorship and propaganda, suppressing political opponents and elevating political supporters, you’re a totalitarian movement seeking to illegitimately seize power.
New York Times, Media Falsely Claim SCOTUS Religious Freedom Decision Ignores Public Safety
The ink was hardly dry on the Supreme Court ruling warning New York’s Governor Cuomo that he could not continue to discriminate against Catholic Churches and Orthodox Jews, before the media started spinning and social media lefties started howling that conservative justices wanted everyone to die of the virus.
Establishment papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post played a major role in spreading this disinformation.
Take this New York Times subheader, “The court signaled that if unconstrained religious observance and public safety are sometimes at odds, then religious freedom should win out.”
The actual decision states that…
1. There’s no actual evidence that unfavorable treatment of religious institutions is in the interests of public safety
2. The religious institutions in question are following public safety guidelines
The issue that the decision dealt with is that the artificial classifications used by Cuomo discriminated against religious institutions and communities, treating some secular establishments as essential, imposing limits on houses of worship with thousands of seats at the same level as much smaller facilities. It also dealt with the larger constitutional questions of Freedom of Religion, but the core legal issue was the stuff above.
So the New York Times subheader, whose essential premise has been widely picked up, is doubly false. The decision does not say that public safety should be put at risk or that observance should be unconstrained, but that it should not be discriminated against.
The New York Times is engaging in a disinformation campaign to slur the decision. But no disputed tags will be slapped on it.