Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Tucker Slams Newsweek Smear As Scheme To Restart Government Surveillance

Corporate Media Hate Anonymous Online Posts Because They Hate Free Speech

The AP is worried Americans have access to information that does not receive a stamp of approval from corporate media and Democrats.

Share

Legacy media outlets don’t want social media users to post online anonymously because they want them to face retribution for what they post — even if it’s true.

The Associated Press (AP) published an article regarding a viral tweet posted by the X account “End Wokeness” that misinterpreted Social Security Administration data to suggest a spike in voter registrations submitted without an ID in key states that also permit illegal immigrants to get Social Security numbers. While the data was incorrect, the concerns raised about illegal immigrants voting are still valid.

“The incident sheds light on how social media accounts that shield the identities of the people or groups behind them through clever slogans and cartoon avatars have come to dominate right-wing political discussion online even as they spread false information,” the AP writes. “Many such internet personalities identify as patriotic citizen journalists uncovering real corruption. Yet their demonstrated ability to spread misinformation unchecked while disguising their true motives worries experts with the United States in a presidential election year.”

The AP cites “expert” Samuel Woolley, director of the Propaganda Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin, who said these accounts are “antithetical to democracy.” Woolley’s work has been funded by Open Society Foundations, which was founded by George Soros and gives grants to left-wing advocacy groups.

The AP then cites Kara Alaimo, a communications professor at Farleigh Dickinson University who claims countries like “China and Russia are actively creating social media accounts designed to sow domestic discord because they think weakening our social fabric gives their countries a competitive advantage.”

The outlet goes on to lambaste anonymous accounts for spreading what it deems “misinformation” and “otherwise misleading content” including “narratives such as alleged voter fraud, the ‘woke agenda’ or Democrats supposedly encouraging a surge of people through illegal immigration to steal elections or replace whites.”

[READ NEXT: ‘Disinfo’ Guru To Voters: Trust Corporate Media Instead Of ‘Doing Your Own Research’]

In other words, the AP is worried that users have access to information, posted by both anonymous and identified accounts, that does not receive a stamp of approval from corporate media and the Democrat politicians whose narratives they serve.

The AP is welcome to read The Federalist’s coverage of actual voter fraud, how illegal immigrants do affect elections, and the serious consequences of the “woke agenda” here, here, and here.

But the AP is not the only voice expressing disapproval of anonymous social media accounts.

Then-Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley suggested last year that Big Tech companies should dox anonymous accounts, claiming it would help control “bots.”

“Russia, Iran and China, North Korea too, know that the cheapest form of warfare is to spread misinformation,” Haley said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” adding:

I want freedom of speech for Americans. I don’t want freedom of speech for Russia and Hamas, and that’s what’s happening right now. So the way you fix that is we need our social media companies to verify everybody. … I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech. What I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech.

But justifying the doxxing of assumed “anonymous Russians” or other foreign actors who, according to Alaimo, want to “sow discord” pretty much guarantees those tools will be used to target American citizens. We’re all familiar with the security state.

And it’s worth noting that Democrats are known for lying about accounts having originated from America’s foreign adversaries, as the “Twitter Files” showed.

Take, for example, the Hamilton 68 dashboard that claimed it was tracking “Russian influence activities” on Twitter when it was actually accusing hundreds of real right-leaning users of being Russian bots. According to Matt Taibbi, Yoel Roth, who was Twitter’s head of trust and safety, told colleagues in 2018 that “the Hamilton dashboard ‘falsely accuses a bunch of legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots.'”

Back in 2018, The Washington Post published an article discussing how anonymous Twitter users — said to be Russian bots by Hamilton 68 — implored the government to release a memo highlighting the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign. The Post, convinced that Americans don’t care to know when bureaucratic agencies are spying on citizens, said the push to “#ReleaseTheMemo” was driven by “Russian disinformation.” Twitter allows users to register anonymously and use “automation tools to post a pace hard for humans alone to match,” the Post said.

Woolley, the so-called “expert” cited by AP, swallowed the Hamilton 68 propaganda hook, line, and sinker. In a quote in The Washington Post’s 2018 article, Woolley called “the research really unequivocal,” adding that the aforementioned features are used to “divide” the country.

“It’s time for the social media companies to design for democracy,” Woolley added — “democracy” being a code word for “hiding information about government malfeasance.”

As Taibbi reported, media outlets also cited Hamilton 68 constantly to claim that Russian bots were amplifying hashtags related to Trump, Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham, and elections, among other things.

But Roth, with the help of other executives, found in February 2018 that “these accounts are neither strongly Russian nor strongly bots; they’re just generally right-leaning users. Virtually any conclusion drawn from it will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.”

Just because corporate media and “experts” like Woolley bought into the hoax about Russian bots doesn’t mean the average American should pay the price and lose their fundamental right to free speech — anonymous or otherwise.


1
0
Access Commentsx
()
x