The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Who Needs Government Suppression
When You Have Big Tech Suppression?

Big Tech – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Instagram (a division of Facebook), Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube (a division of Google) – have moved into overdrive on their Standards and Practices divisions as I have outlined in my Chirp, “07/15/30 Ministry of Truth”. This overdrive is a result of the 2020 Presidential election and is directed at anyone who would disagree with their political opinions or viewpoints, political opinions and viewpoints that have a decidedly progressive, leftists, and Democratic Party orientation. They have utilized the excuse that they are suppressing misinformation, incorrect facts, and untruths in the postings on their social media websites. This suppression appears to be only on one side of the issues – the suppression of conservative thoughts and opinions. They often claim, when this suppression is discovered, that it was a mistake that they would correct, but these mistakes are only corrected after the suppression. Should they not be correcting these mistakes before they suppress these posts, and, indeed, should they even be engaged in this suppression?

The problem that they do not admit to is that they often ignore contrary facts or employ improper "Formal and Informal Logic", or engage in "Cognitive Biases" or "Logical Fallacies" in their Standards and Practices departments. These are all too human characteristics that are to be expected whenever someone makes a judgment call. This is to be expected whenever you have a herd mentality in a group making these judgments. And a herd mentality is what you have in the Standards and Practices divisions of these companies: a herd mentality that supports progressive, leftists, and Democratic Party opinions and viewpoints. And most of this herd mentality originates from the top of the companies. The leadership of these companies is overwhelmingly Progressives and Democrats, who hire Progressives and Democrats in the Standards and Practices divisions, and those people hired reflect the viewpoints of their leadership and themselves. As I have stated in previous Chirps and Articles, these people believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. And always being correct, they do not need to consider alternative opinions and viewpoints.

Some companies have contracted to “independent fact-checkers” to verify the veracity of social media posts. The question is then ‘How independent are they, and do they suffer from the same improper "Formal and Informal Logic" or engage in "Cognitive Biases" or "Logical Fallacies’?”. Unfortunately, the answer is they are not very independent, as they are dependent on the contracting company for their income. They are also keenly aware of the proclivities of the contracting companies’ management and employees and, therefore, they are more likely than not to cater to their propensities. These independent fact-checkers often hire like-minded persons that suffer from a herd mentality that supports progressive, leftists, and Democratic Party opinions and viewpoints. To analogize it another way, if the Mafia sets up a ‘front’ company to launder its ill-gotten monies, is the front company independent from the Mafia?

It should also be remembered that humans suffer from the natural inclination to not be precise in their communications. Words and phrases are often imprecisely stated or written, and therefore open to interpretation. This interpretation can change the original intent of the statement to something that was not intended. If you are predisposed to one opinion or viewpoint, you will interpret the statement in one manner, while if you were disinclined to the opinions or viewpoint, you would interpret the statement in another manner. This interpretation can also be made in a positive, negative, or neutral inclination, depending on the opinions and viewpoints and cognitive biases of the audience. This interpretation can also be made constrictively or loosely, which could lead to an improper judgment as to the veracity of the facts or truths of the statement. This interpretation is most common in statements by politicians and Political Action Committees, as they are often deliberately imprecise for the purposes of political gain.

The companies and independent fact-checkers could correct this situation if they had two groups of Standards and Practices personnel – one group that reflects Progressive and Democratic opinions and viewpoints, and one group that reflects Conservative and Republican opinions and viewpoints. Both groups would have to agree before they suppress misinformation, incorrect facts, and untruths in the postings on their social media websites. But, alas, I have seen no indications that this occurs.

But this begs the question, “Why should they even engage in suppressing misinformation, incorrect facts, and untruths in the postings on their social media websites?’. All too often, these are judgment calls, judgments that are more often wrong as they are right. There is rarely an objective means to determine misinformation, incorrect facts, and untruths, which makes most of these determinations subjective.

A historical, scientific, example illuminates this problem. In the 1950s, all but one geologist believe that the Earth’s continents were fixed on the mantle of the Earth. When one geologist that the continents were not fixed but floated on the mantle, and were in constant motion due to rifts in the mantle on the seafloor spewing magma that expanded the seafloor, the other geologists though that this was harebrained. The refused to hear his viewpoint and evidence, did not allow him to publish in scientific journals, and would not allow him to speak at Scientific conferences. However, he refused to accept this condemnation and continued to gather evidence for his hypothesis. Eventually, his evidence became overwhelming, that the other geologist had to accept his hypothesis. Today the theory of Continental Drift driven by Plate Tectonics is a bedrock (pun intended) of geology and is accepted by all geologists.

If Social Media had existed at this time and had Standards and Practices departments, they would have suppressed his hypothesis as misinformation, incorrect facts, and untruths, and he and his hypothesis would not have been allowed on social media. This is the problem of suppression on social media. Things are always in a state of flux, new facts come to light, incorrect facts and truths are discarded, and opinions change. This is true for not only scientific things but for all things. When social media suppresses information or contrary facts and truths, they do not recognize the certainty of change, and they become blinded to change. And you should always remember that there is a difference between facts and truths and a consensus of opinion. A consensus of opinion does not make for facts or truths but is only a guide for what is most likely.

These Standards and Practices departments, and the Independent Fact Checkers, are blinding their viewers to alternative opinions and viewpoints that make it very difficult for the viewers to make an informed decision or to accept change. This often leads to improper social policy that has deleterious effects on society. For those who would respond that they are only trying to protect their viewers from misinformation, incorrect facts, and untruths, I would respond that the best protection of their viewers is to allow for all information to be presented and allow for the chips to fall where they may. To not do so is to deprive their viewers of alternative opinions and viewpoints, which makes for uninformed decisions and increases the disharmony of society.

Unfortunately, we have also seen this suppression and lack of diversity in “Modern Journalism” as a result of Conglomerate Newspapers and Mainstream Media. Conglomerate Newspapers and Mainstream Media suppression and lack of diversity that has the same deleterious effects as Big Tech suppression and lack of diversity. There has also been a consolidation of opinions and viewpoints that are essentially the same between Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech as they hired like-minded people. This consolidation of opinions has now intervened in our political process, as conservative opinions and viewpoints are being suppressed by Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech before the 2020 Presidential election. A suppression that is done under the veneer of suppressing misinformation, incorrect facts, and untruths and a suppression meant to influence the election in one direction.

In the past, we were rightly concerned about the suppression of free speech and a free press by government, and the associated impacts on our Freedoms and Liberties of this suppression. This was the reason for the adoption of the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution. However, today this suppression of free speech and a free press is not coming from the government, but this suppression of free speech and a free press is coming from Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech. A suppression that is equally as dangerous as governmental suppression. In the past, we depended upon the diversity of opinion by newspapers and journalism to spread diverse opinions and allow for the American public to make informed decisions. Today, however, with the rise of Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech, there is little diversity of opinion in and between these organizations. We need to recognize the free speech implications of Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech suppression and rectify this suppression. Otherwise, the Freedoms and Liberties of all Americans are endangered.