Facebook Was Pressured to Censor Conservative News Outlets | Crossroads

Good evening and welcome to Crossroads. Representative Jim Jordan has been exposing what he alleges is a censorship by proxy system. Get this, the federal government has been working through social media sites to censor Americans. We've talked about it before with his new stuff on it. The House Judiciary Committee has obtained documents now showing it. And Jordan has been releasing these documents publicly under the label of the Facebook files. These documents show the federal government was pushing for changes that would hide conservative news outlets. Gee, wonder what happened to my content, right? In favor notably of liberal outlets. One message notably suggests that Facebook could change its algorithms to achieve this. It states from the federal government, if you were to change the algorithm so that people were more likely to see New York Times, Wall Street Journal, any authoritative news source over Daily Wire, Tommy Loren, polarizing people, you wouldn't have a mechanism to check the material impact. Now, Facebook suggested that if the platform couldn't remove content, if they couldn't go all the way, they could potentially quote unquote contain it. Now, Jim Jordan said the company admitted to the White House that it reduced content of certain posts, even if the post didn't violate the company's terms and contained true information. In other words, they were censoring truth, not just misinformation or even what they deemed as such. Part of this likely ties into what's now being flagged under the broad brush of government censorship. Look, the public often hears about misinformation and disinformation. There's actually a third category. Get this, agencies are flagging this. It's called mal-information, malicious information. It's information that may be completely true, like the stuff Facebook was flagging on behalf of the federal government, but they deem this true information malicious. This definition could actually significantly broaden what government actors are able to flag through their public private systems of censorship, which notably they want to expand. Now, the concepts described this whole thing of mal-information, it's under the so-called censorship police at the government's cybersecurity infrastructure security agency, also known as CISA, C-I-S-A. It claims this, foreign actors use misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information campaigns to cause chaos, confusion, and division. These malign actors are seeking to interfere with and undermine our democratic institutions and national cohesiveness. They want to divide us. They want to destroy democracy. Now look, misinformation is typically just outright false information. Disinformation can be things like false flags, lies sprinkled in with things that are otherwise true, or just false conclusions drawn from otherwise true information. One of the big problems we've had previously is who defines what is true and what's false. And notably, many of the people pushing for these things are themselves doing the very thing they claim to be going after. And the third category now, mal-information, is a whole other one. It extends to the powers of censorship in something that goes far beyond what we've seen before. It goes after content that may be totally accurate, completely true, but that could be labeled as hate speech or labeled as offensive. They found a way to censor quote unquote hate speech. Now, when it comes to what any given person does these days, in other words, they could label this as malicious. The sky is the limit because, well, it seems that something offends just about everyone these days. Representative Jim Jordan noted that the newly subpoenaed internal notes are from conversations between Facebook executives and officials from the Biden administration. He alleges that they detail the quote, links the Biden White House wanted to go to to control true speech on Facebook. Now, of course, censorship programs like this were not limited to Facebook. Similar operations were targeted at sites like Twitter, Google, many others. And some of the pressure for censorship even comes from other countries. You're seeing this on Facebook right now. With Twitter, I mean. Among the international organizations trying to police online content is the Center for Countering Digital Hate, also known as the CCDH. You might remember this company. It made headlines several months ago back when Elon Musk, head of X, which is now called formerly known as Twitter, held a live interview with BBC and was asked about a supposed increase in hateful content on the platform after he took over. Do you remember that? Watch this. I'm not saying anything. I'm saying- Well, I'm just curious. I'm trying to say what you mean by hateful content. I'm asking for specific examples. And you just said that if something is slightly sexist, that's hateful content. Does that mean that it should be banned? Well, you've asked me whether my feed, whether it's got less or more. I'd say it's got slightly more. That's what I'm asking for examples. Can you name one example? Honestly, don't you? Honestly, I don't- You can't name a single example. I'll tell you why. Because I don't actually use that feed anymore because I just don't particularly like it. And actually, a lot of people are quite similar. I only look at my followers. Well, hang on a second. You said you've seen more hateful content, but you can't name a single example. Not even one. I'm not sure I've used that feed for the last three or four weeks. And I- Well, then how did you see the hateful content? Getting that. There's more hateful content. What hateful content? Well, I don't know, but I've heard it's there. I believe it's there. It's there. I'm saying it's there. Well, give me a source. There is none. Guess what? It turned out the main source for his claim, the claim of a rise of hateful content, was this organization, the CCDH. And now X, Twitter, formally, is pushing back against that organization. In fact, an official post from the X company blog states this, the Center for Countering Digital Hate and its backers, including international organizations, have been actively working to assert false and misleading claims, encouraging advertisers to pause investment on the platform. X is a free public service funded largely by advertisers. Through the CCDH's scare campaign, and its ongoing pressure to brand, on brand to prevent the public's access to free expression, the CCDH is actively working to prevent public dialogue. Seems kind of hateful to me. The company alleges that CCDH even gained access to data on X without proper authorization, and had violated the company's terms of service by scraping the platform. X is also alleging that the CCDH is actively working to prevent free expression. It says this includes targeting people on all platforms who speak about issues the CCDH doesn't agree with, and going after notably as well, the revenue streams of free speech platforms in order to pressure them to censor. Wow, that's all for YouTube for the rest of the episode. Come join us on Epoch TV, because I'm going to talk about stuff that I will get banned for talking about on YouTube probably. Notably, January 6th, a new video coming out that reveals that something may have, some funny business might have been going on. Put it that way. Trump is actually issuing a subpoena to get this new evidence, and it could be pretty serious when it comes to him facing trial in Washington over his alleged involvement in it. Big stuff, I can't talk about it on YouTube again, so join us on Epoch TV. We'll also be going into how Democrats are pushing for gender words like he and she to be removed from the US legal code. And also in New York, while they're pushing to ban things like, for example, ketchup and napkins and stoves, we actually have a state of emergency here with the migrant crisis, some pretty serious stuff going on with that. Again, great interviews coming up. Join us on Epoch TV, epochtv.com for the rest of the episode. Link in the description. We have also a sale right now, so come join us and I will see you there. People from 160 countries illegally cross the US-Mexico border and get themselves up to Border Patrol. But what about the ones who evade Border Patrol? These are known as the Guts. You can safely assume that anybody that went through the extra effort to avoid US Border Patrol was not an asylum seeker by default. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but sooner or later, somebody rapes and kills somebody and we find out that they came through here on my watch, that's unacceptable. These men had surrounded my house, they were banging on my back door, they were banging on my front door. You can't understand it unless you're out here seeing it every day. 21 dead bodies on the road. Is it wrong to ask people to come to your front door of your home? Then why would it be wrong to ask people to come to the front door of our nation? Their primary goal is to circumvent the checkpoints, go undetected. People that do not want to surrender, those are gonna be the potential terrorists, the criminals, the real threat to the US. We were hoping the federal government would step in and do something, but they didn't. We have no clue who they are or where they go. That's the scary part.