BREAKING: The State Department Worked To Censor Conservatives
We know the FBI helped Twitter ban conservative voices, but they weren’t the only executive agency getting in on the action.
New information has finally been made public detailing the Department of State’s censorship effort. They partially funded “the Global Disinformation Index (GDI),” a project designed to flag online content as “risky” and discourage ad spending on the offending sites.
You can probably guess who was always on that “risky” list.
And it’s not surprising at all that conservatives are up in arms about it.
GDI targeted several right-leaning news websites on its list of “risky” outlets that advertisers should avoid. Among the websites flagged are the American Spectator, the Federalist, and the Daily Wire. (They did not specifically note FreePressFail.com but we can guess they weren’t fans.)
Meanwhile, a litany of progressive-leaning outlets such as ProPublica, National Public Radio, and the Washington Post were deemed “least risky.”
The efforts of GDI seem to have had the desired effect, with a billion-dollar online advertising company owned by Microsoft blocking advertising to several right-leaning websites.
GDI’s analysts described many of these sites as “false/misleading” and lacking in “redeeming social value.”
So, a group of biased liberals got to decide what constitutes redeeming social value? No shock they found no redeeming qualities for conservatives.
If they continue with this – the only sites that will be allowed will be the ones pushing the idea that there are 10283 and genders or cults demanding sainthood for Dr. Fauci.
The fact that the GDI is partially financed by the U.S. Department of State has drawn the ire of First Amendment advocates and some Republicans in Congress. Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, a Republican who sits on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, criticized the State Department for funding “woke organizations who seek to censor and demonetize conservative outlets.”
GDI’s mission statement suggests that the firm’s founding principle is to cut off funding to offending sites, with the goal of combating disinformation. However, the group’s definition of “disinformation” as narratives that are “adversarial” to democratic institutions, scientific consensus, or at-risk groups is a broad one. It’s easy to see how this definition could be used to justify censorship of content that some people simply disagree with or find uncomfortable.
Sites like ours. Ideas like yours.
By attempting to silence certain voices, these elites are making their mission all too clear: Embrace group think – accept your “leaders” – or lose everything.
Personally, I would rather starve than end up on the good side of the anti-free speech globalists.