Republican Convention 2020

Big Tech Is Not a Big Threat to Conservative Speech. The RNC Just Proved It.

While cable news outlets cut away from the convention, social media platforms offered unrestricted access.

|

In his opening remarks at the virtual Republican National Convention (RNC) on Monday night, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk predictably assailed Big Tech for censoring conservatives—an all-too-familiar point of view that has increasingly come to dominate much of the right's thinking about social media.

"The American way of life means you speak your mind without retribution, without being kicked off social media by a self-righteous censor in Silicon Valley," said Kirk. He also accused tech platforms of silencing doctors while regurgitating Chinese state propaganda.

Sean Parnell, a Republican running for a Pennsylvania House seat, echoed the same talking point, expressing the view that the Democratic Party was beholden to Big Tech.

"The party of Harry Truman became the party of hedge fund managers, Hollywood celebrities, tech moguls, and university professors, all bloated with contempt for middle America," said Parnell.

This is, by now, a familiar refrain. "Big Tech hates conservatives and will stop at nothing to silence them" has become the default conservative opinion, popularized by Republican ideological leaders like Sens. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R–Texas).

And yet if there was ever a televised event that demonstrated the lameness of the conservative anti-tech position, it was the first day of the RNC. No major tech platform censored any of the content—on the contrary, they granted easy and unrestricted access.

Multiple YouTube channels aired the RNC in full. It was possible to watch the event live on the GOP Convention's Facebook page, and to find it on Google (it's the top video result). Even Twitter, the platform most obviously hostile to conservatives, made it perfectly easy to watch. All of the platforms provided unlimited access to the remarks by Kirk, Parnell, and everyone else who spoke—and importantly, this access came at no cost to viewers.

Contrary to the anti-social media perspective peddled by Kirk and others, it was traditional media outlets that restricted conservative speakers. CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News cut away from the convention repeatedly. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow was petrified that unfiltered access to Republican speakers would cause her audience to succumb to disinformation, and thus she ceaselessly intervened to explain why certain GOP talking points were false. (Unsurprisingly, there was no live fact-check of the Democratic National Convention.)

Viewers with a cable subscription who preferred a selective, biased curation of the RNC could turn on their televisions. Viewers who just wanted to watch the event without interruption or interjection could do so for free on any of the major tech platforms.

This is an important point and one that the anti-tech crusaders in the Republican Party ought to consider more carefully as they mull regulations aimed at hampering social media companies. To the extent that there are genuine anti-conservative biases on social media, they pale in comparison to the biases of the traditional media. It's true that tech platforms occasionally make arbitrary or contradictory rulings about politically extreme speech; meanwhile, The New York Times opinion page apologized for publishing a provocative but fairly mainstream opinion piece by a major Republican senator, fired the editor responsible, and essentially vowed never to make this mistake again. Conservative voices have flourished on Facebook, where articles from Breitbart and The Daily Wire praising President Donald Trump are routinely among the most shared content. At the same time, there's not a single reliably pro-Trump columnist at the Times or The Washington Post.

If social media were to be regulated out of existence—and make no mistake, proposals to abolish Section 230 could accomplish precisely this—then the Republican Party would return itself to the world where traditional media gatekeepers have significantly more power to restrict access to conservative speech. It should come as little surprise that Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden, who supports the revocation of Section 230, prefers this world. Why does Charlie Kirk?

NEXT: The Republican National Convention Isn't Out To Convert Anyone

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Major convention coverage isn’t proof of anything.

    1. Needz moar American flags in the background.

      1. I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I’ve made such great m0ney.BDs I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It’s’ really user friendly and I’m just so happY that I found out about this HERE….

        ==========► Click here

    2. I was looking through some of the Twitter feeds of Reason writers, and they were lambasting the R convention in real time but were silent during the D convention.

      At this point, is it taken for granted, that most of the writers on here fully support Biden over Trump?

      This article is an example of pretty weak evidence for the point being made. There is a clear and organized intent to restrict free speech in media, social media, large companies, and education. It is astonishing that a Libertarian writer would dispute that in print.

  2. So you’re saying the actual threat to conservative speech rights is biased cable news networks.

    1. The takeaway I’m getting from Robby:
      Big Tech hates conservatives and wants to silence them, just not as badly as the DNC/Media complex.

    2. Every month makes more than $18k by just doing very easy and simple online job from homr. Last month i have made and received $19428 from this work by just giving this only 2 to 3 hrs a day. Everybody can now get this job and start earning money online just by follow instructions on this web HERE………….Go To Link

  3. I’m not sure this article actually makes the point that Soave is trying to make.

    1. I’m fairly sure it doesn’t, and I generally agree with Soave’s opinion that Big Tech is not the threat to free speech that conservative activists, politicians, pundits and are making it out to be.

  4. “If social media were to be regulated out of existence—and make no mistake, proposals to abolish Section 230 could accomplish precisely this—then the Republican Party would return itself to the world where traditional media gatekeepers have significantly more power to restrict access to conservative speech.”

    This is correct, but it’s only part of the story.

    Streaming services that aren’t social media platforms made the convention available to people of all political stripes. If I’m not mistaken, you could watch the coverage on streaming services as far to the right as One America News, streamed via the center like on Yahoo News, to the left like Cheddar and Newsy. I watched it on Bloomberg’s Roku app, which is completely free. I’m not mentioning a slew of other options with streaming . . .

    The point is that streaming apps are probably the bigger threat to cable news and broadcast news–rather than social media. Anybody that signs up for a cable or streaming package that charges them extra for live news from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. is a consumer that doesn’t really understand his or her options. And as more and more consumers become aware of their options, those gatekeeper news models of old will suck more and more air.

    1. It is also almost a fact that any work the government does to “reign in” social media companies won’t put them out of business. It will solidify them as the social media we get for the foreseeable future. Google and Facebook have no problem dumping millions into moderation of comments. And they have no problem dumping millions into the pockets of politicians that will define the standards of that moderation. In 20 years, the Board of Social Moderation will still be explaining why “hurtful” speech should be moderated, and Twitter will still be there lobbying for new rules, because no competition will ever unseat them.

      1. The distinction has to be open forums versus publishers.

        Publishers that actively cull posts for anything other than explicitly clear guidelines should be regulated.

        I have been cut off from Reddit, Vox, etc. for posting non-incendiary fact-based posts. I think we would all prefer that social media was more libertarian in its guidelines for all points of view.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…YNv after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do……….> Click here

    2. Removing government prohibition on someone facing the possibility of defending their actions in court = regulating out of existence?

  5. That’s a poor argument. Just because Big Tech lets conservatives say some things doesn’t mean they aren’t a threat. That’s akin to saying a defendant can have a just defense in court while being forbidden from every pleading not guilty. Big Tech limits what conservatives can argue and say and handicaps their arguments. Meanwhile liberals get a free pass to say and argue anything they want regardless of if its true. If conservatives are not able to freely respond, then they’re handicapped in the argument.

    1. Moreover, it’s the false argument Mott-and-Bailey. The standard misrepresentation of people who think we shouldn’t be flipping coins as “Republicans opposed to coins landing heads up.” The question isn’t whether networks or tech or even private businesses can censor. The question is whether they can censor one group *and get government protection* and do so *while openly aiding and abetting other groups*.

      1. The RNC, not the media, is the one the curates who the speakers are, so that’s probably the better place to aim your ire. It’s just the media’s job to trick you into thinking we should take anyone belonging to the DNC or the RNC seriously.

        1. What really needs to happen is that the Marxist propaganda machine that masquerades as actual news media must be destroyed. They aren’t the Fourth Estate, but in reality are Fifth Column.

          1. The Pravda editors were in very real danger of arrest and death if they pissed off Stalin. The NYT willingly promotes the same Marxist principles including revisionist history.

            1. The Bolsheviks running the NYT and WaPo really need to read what happened to Trotsky, Molotov, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, Yuri Piatakov, Grigory Sokolnikov, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Sergey Kirov, Lazar Kaganovich and Béla Kun.

              If they don’t smarten up on the DNC before it’s too late, then one day they’ll be sitting in the dock at a show trial.

              1. I think the only thing they feel they need to read anymore is Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. Do the work!

              2. All this because they favor universal healthcare like any other decent country has. I guess Marxism won huh?

                1. We’ve already got more government spending and a higher share of government spending than the other “decent countries plus a fuckton of regulations about how much health care can be delivered and in what manner. What the hell more do you want?

                2. All this because they favor universal healthcare

                  No.
                  Because they shill for authoritarian bullies, unhinged and bloodthirsty blackshirts and power-mad old men like Soros.

  6. He also accused tech platforms of silencing doctors while regurgitating Chinese state propaganda.

    They did silence doctors.

    1. Quite specifically doctors. Even cancelled their website for giving medical advice that Big Tech didn’t like

      1. Was it false medical advice? Just because you are doctor does not mean you know what you are talking about. There are many kooks out there with a medical degree.

        1. Who decides?
          A central authority?

        2. You’re better than this. They took down several doctors (not just one pair of them) who have voiced opposition to shutdowns and opposition to the false narrative that everyone is at a high risk of death from this virus. I can’t believe you’re going out of your way to defend that shit.

          1. “You’re better than this”

            HIs post is right there bruh.

            YOU’RE better that THAT.

            1. Why don’t you ever shut the fuck up?

              1. Ok you’re not better than that, I can admit when I was wrong.

              2. He’s right though.
                Eunuch is not better than that.
                You are.

          2. I can’t believe you’re going out of your way to defend that shit

            The rest of us can.

          3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zUFrH9xQ-Q

            Jeffrey Tucker has voiced complaints about this shit from social media companies. We can play the game where Jeffrey Tucker is some kind of “pro-Trump libertarian” or whatever or we can live in reality.

            1. Do you have a link that’s not from the Trump Network? I will revise my stance on this if I see some non-far right news sources reporting on doctors with legitimate medical concerns being censored, rather than Trump supporter doctors spouting questionable nonsense like taking unproven cures for coronavirus, claiming masks are not effective for limiting the spread of coronavirus, or that there is a vast conspiracy to cook the data. The social media companies, being private entities, are perfectly within their rights to either remove such posts or to add fact-check labels to such posts, in the interest of public health and in the interest of preserving their brand.

              1. You’re dismissing Jeffrey Tucker’s point because it’s on OAN? Maybe if Reason would ever offer libertarians a voice on their platform he wouldn’t have to go on OAN to discuss censorship of doctors who don’t fit a political agenda.

                Jeffrey Tucker has done great work during this shutdown. There is a point where your hatred of Trump (who is inconsequential to the question of whether or not censoring doctors is a rational thing to do during a supposed pandemic) overcomes common sense.

                1. And the cope out “it’s a private company” is utter bullshit. Just because something is privately run doesn’t mean that it can’t be criticized. And people who support policing bathroom policies and cake baking kind of lose the right to ever scream “it’s a private company” ever again. I’m not saying that’s you, but those are typically the type of libertarians who like to scream that in defense of every criticism leveled at a private company doing something that they support.

                    1. Doctors being censored on social media for opposing lockdowns.

              1. This is immaterial to the point. You are really purposely missing the forest for the trees. Tucker even says in the interview that he doesn’t know whether it’s effective or not, but he doesn’t see the purpose in censoring doctors because they don’t fit the preferred political agenda.

                Maybe you can pull up the Lancelot study next.

                1. Take a deep breath and really think about your position here: Jeffrey Tucker is pro-Trump? Jeffrey Tucker is too right-wing? What the fuck?

        3. Defend that speech policing.

  7. Robby is an idiot. Social media and search engines are the threat, not streaming. Jesus christ.

    1. Not only is streaming a bigger threat to cable and network news than social media, OAN (as a streaming service) is probably a bigger threat to Fox News over the long term than CNN or broadcast news.

      1. Hi Ken you’re stupid so I’ll help. Only in your Aspergers riddled brain is anyone discussing the threat to cable news.

        Cheers.

        1. “Only in your Aspergers riddled brain is anyone discussing the threat to cable news.”

          —-Tulpa

          “While cable news outlets cut away from the convention, social media platforms offered unrestricted access.

          . . . .

          Contrary to the anti-social media perspective peddled by Kirk and others, it was traditional media outlets that restricted conservative speakers. CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News cut away from the convention repeatedly.

          . . . .

          Viewers with a cable subscription who preferred a selective, biased curation of the RNC could turn on their televisions. Viewers who just wanted to watch the event without interruption or interjection could do so for free on any of the major tech platforms.

          —-Robby Soave

          This whole article is all about the threat to traditional cable posed by social media–Tulpa, you stupid asshole.

          My only addition was that the streaming revolution presents an even bigger threat to cable news than social media.

          Because–you don’t understand–what other people are talking about, doesn’t make them stupid. It means you’re ignorant.

          1. Hi Ken you’re stupid so I’ll help AGAIN. Only in your Aspergers riddled brain is anyone discussing the threat to cable news.

            Cheers.

    2. Why wouldn’t cutting cable and moving to streaming services that don’t offer broadcast networks or cable news be a greater threat to broadcast news and cable news than social media?

      1. Hi Ken you’re stupid so I’ll help.

        YOU stupidly made this about “news” which he is definitely NOT talking about because youre dumb as fuck. Considering thus article is NOT ABOUT A THREAT TO NEWS BUT TO PEOPLE your Aspie tendencies got the better of you and made you post something retardedly off topic again.

        Hope that helped.

        1. Settle down, Beavis.

          1. Nah I think I’ll keep pointing out how stupid Ken is but ty

          2. Correction…It’s “Thettle down, Beavith.”

  8. I think the point is that the “traditional media” is as much, or more, about their “talking heads,” and their analysis about what the people are saying, rather than what is actually being said. If you want some self-stylized intellectual telling you what was just said, then that is fine. If you actually want to hear what is said, without interruptions or commentary, then social media is that place to watch it.

    1. Like the Olympics. You don’t get to see all the events but you do get Bob Kostas and the bobble heads eating up all the screen time.

  9. Soave seems to have missed the point, or is intentionally changing the narrative. Showing a unique event like the convention is not proof against discrimination on platforms like Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube, plus Google juicing the search algorithm.

    That said, they could not even let RNC speeches pass, fact-checking conservatives speeches real-time when no such service was done during the DNC convention.

  10. Good point.. why this debate is going in the comment section?
    everybody has the rights to mention their views and people are blaming each others…

  11. Wow bad argument even for that guy.

  12. >>No major tech platform censored any of the content—on the contrary, they granted easy and unrestricted access.

    yeah they were gonna censor the RNC on day one. gevalt.

    1. Germany was a paragon of liberty and free speech in the 16 mos. between Hitler’s appointment to the Chancellorship and the Night Of The Long Knives.

  13. Well Said Robby Saove the great thing you are discussing
    But I have information regarding a content that must be better you have tried great and hope you will do great in your life
    Know more:-https://www.contentwriting.us/seo-content-writing

  14. If social media were to be regulated out of existence—and make no mistake, proposals to abolish Section 230 could accomplish precisely this

    Section 230 places no limitations on Congress, even being generous and saying it does, it certainly doesn’t do it in any manner as clear as “Congress shall make no law…”. Congress could void it and put something else in its place tomorrow. The very premise of your argument is that social media exists soley by the grace of Congress. How the fuck do you get liberty so backwards?

    1. How the fuck do you get liberty so backwards?

      Because of a corrupt educational system which teaches the premise of ‘constitutional rights’. The moment you rely on the government for your rights is the moment you start to lose them. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are not granted to us by the document, they are inherent rights, in regards to which the government is enjoined from interference. Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. It can (but shouldn’t) pass laws that protect people and corporations from the consequences of that speech.

      This should also be the core of the entire argument regarding police reform. It is only because of the corruption of the concept of natural rights that QI is even a real thing and that police and other government agents can lie to innocent citizens.

  15. What if in one of these speeches someone says children are nearly immune to covid. Would social media allow it?

    1. Scientifically, it could be said they are nearly immune to the effects of COVID, but they can transmit the virus.

      1. In order for that to be scientific there needs to be data and evidence to support that position, so far none has been provided. The only evidence available supports the fact that children are at a minimal, to non-existent risk to COVID.

        1. I personally know someone who’s infant tested positive for COVID at a well child check-up. As he only had a slight fever and no cough, there was not even a suspicion before the test. Everyone he contacted still quarantined as if exposed.

          If he was actually immune, was that an overreaction on the part of the adults? If not, is the term immune properly applied to carriers who are asymptomatic?

          1. I don’t know, but CDC numbers suggest that the likelihood of mortality and hospitalizations (infection rate is immaterial as we already know its highly contagious) for infants, who have been tested for the virus, is 0.4% (hence less posing less of a danger than being in a driving car).

            There is no data, so far, showing transmission from child to adult.

      2. “Scientifically, it could be said they are nearly immune to the effects of COVID”

        Which is of course exactly what he said

        “nearly immune to covid. “

      3. Irrelevant. Point is whether social media would allow rnc speeches that put forth statements which social media deem ls misinformation. We know they don’t.

  16. ” To the extent that there are genuine anti-conservative biases on social media, they pale in comparison to the biases of the traditional media.”

    Kind of a the very low bar standard.

  17. Allowing access to the RNC convention isn’t really counter proof that Big Tech stacks the deck against conservative voices.

    The primary complaint about Big Tech (the reasonable complaint) is that Big Tech shaves the dice in regards to how TOS violations are arbitrarily applied, how algorithms are tweaked to lower the rankings of certain conservative channels, pages and podcasts, and how certain creators are ‘difficult to find’ based on searches (on Youtube for one example) that are directly relevant to the content being sought.

    Yes, Big Tech features ‘trusted source news’ pretty fairly. So you’ll get promoted videos for CNN, ABC, CBS and… Fox. But the fact that they include ‘fox’ isn’t a slam dunk counterpoint to whether or not conservative creators are simply made to have a harder time of it than non-conservative voices.

    I have repeatedly stopped short of suggesting answers to the problem, especially answers which involve the intervention of government because that always goes very wrong. And as we’ve seen with internal market squabbles, the domination of the current crop of Big Tech corporations is going to be a temporary market condition.

    1. “The primary complaint about Big Tech (the reasonable complaint) is that Big Tech shaves the dice in regards to how TOS violations are arbitrarily applied, how algorithms are tweaked to lower the rankings of certain conservative channels, pages and podcasts, and how certain creators are ‘difficult to find’ based on searches (on Youtube for one example) that are directly relevant to the content being sought.”

      I think that’s your primary beef, but I’m not sure that’s the one the average Joe conservative is complaining about. I think they hate social media for biased against them–and the rest of it is just a rationalization.

      Those of us who argue about whether social media should be dealt with–regardless of and outside the question of whether they’re biased against conservatives–are probably relatively rare. For the average conservative complainer, the argument is about whether social media is biased against conservatives, and that’s pretty much the end of the argument for them. Because social media is biased against them, they want to hurt it any way they can.

    2. The left got “uncle tom” trending on Twitter last night.

      Let me repeat that

      THE LEFT GOT “UNCLE TOM” TRENDING ON TWITTER LAST NIGHT

  18. This is just an aspect of what is happening to America and the world – we are splitting apart into separate echo chambers. If Twitter won’t allow speech they consider false, derogatory, or just plain wrong thinking, then people will migrate to a different platform like Parler. You don’t have to watch MSNBC or Fox, but can choose one. The networks have chosen a sort left of middle ground stance on everything and can’t be trusted to even display anything that makes that position look bad in any way. So some go to Fox and thee MSNBC crowd complain if the news hasn’t gone totally socialist woke.
    We will stop talking to each other.

  19. At the same time, there’s not a single reliably pro-Trump columnist at the Times or The Washington Post.

    Said by someone who obviously doesn’t read the Post, where both Hugh Hewitt and Marc Theissen are reliably pro-Trump. The Times is a different matter.

    1. Yes, the Washington Post is renowned for its diversity of thought. You get everything from neocon to neolib. What more could you want?

    2. A pro-Trump viewpoint is not wanted. Pro-conservative, sure. Because columnists should be about idea and not personalities.

      1. “Because columnists should be ”

        Oh god shut up.

      2. “Because columnists should be about idea and not personalities.”

        EVERYTHING is about personality and perceptions these days, except to some of us that know better.

  20. RNC night one viewership on night one was nearly 4 times larger than DNC on C-SPAN and YouTube reports viewership was nearly double compared to DNC night one. Also, pollsters doing real time dial in polling found that independents favorably viewed the majority of the speeches and that one pollster tracking undecided voters found 11% going for Biden, compared to 22% for Trump after night one.

    1. Maybe what happens is people want to watch without the commentary. It’s like watching football when Collingsworth and Buck are announcing, it’s better to mute the TV than listen to their inane, bandwagon chatter.

  21. The GOP base is mostly old people who don’t understand this tech stuff. So demonizing tech plays up to them. Also the reason why Trump is faux-promising a Lunar base and manned mission to Mars. It’s old school tech the base can understand.

    Not sure if I’m joking here. My local chapter is not quite geriatric, but still mostly late boomers and older, plus a smattering of young YAFers who haven’t gotten disillusioned yet. The party definitely needs younger blood, but the narrative is that youngsters are all socialists and thus viewed with deep suspicion.

  22. Who cares if the huge convention can get access? They’re not the ones we should be worrying about. It’s the little guy with no power and wrongthink that gets fucked by big tech. Journalists are just the useful idiots that cover and run interference for them.

  23. Wow! That is so insightful!

    One event being available on YouTube means there is no problem at all!! Genius!

    And the Manson family only went murdering that one time.

    They are not hiding it. This is such a stupid argument… They have openly been exploring various methods of controlling ideas they dislike. All of the platforms are suppressing opinions that disagree with the messaging from the WHO about covid. I watch a couple of skeptic YouTube channels and both had content taken down for merely referencing people who disagree with the WHO… which they were doing explicitly to debunk them.

    Arguing that this does not exist is like arguing that the world is flat.

    The only question here is, “what is the degree of this and what impact does it have?”

    1. That being said, regulation is not the answer. You make good points about Network TV being worse.

      The answer to bad speech is always more speech. I am not sure what the answer to “if you don’t restrict these ideas that we disagree with we will make sure you cannot get payment processing, hosting services, banking, isp, advertising, etc. ”

      That is what is happening. It is intermittent and at the margins so far, but the wind is blowing inexorably in that direction.

    2. Maybe YouTube doesn’t want to be known as a swamp for anti-science and bigoted horseshit.

  24. Big Tech and social media doesn’t want to censor conservative voices, how could they?

    Except when twitter marks and ‘corrects’ the President’s tweets.

    Except when google et al shadowbans conservative channels/people.

    Except when youtube et al demonetizes the ‘wrong-thinkers’.

    Except when they ‘optimize’ their algorithms to only show us what they wants us to see.

    1. You forgot about labeling mainstream conservative opinion and policy as hateful and bullying so they have an excuse to ban conservatives outright.

  25. And John Dillinger wasn’t a bank robber because there were many banks he didn’t rob.

  26. My god the success they’ve had with no platform whatsoever other than whining like little bitches. Oh no I’m too racist for Twitter why are they so mean. Oh no I have to be a decent human being even if you’re trans oh dear wahh. Vote Republican!

  27. Sure, they showed the convention video simply as raw news. But try posting the text of anything said in those videos, or snippets from the videos, to your Twitter or Youtube or Facebook account and see what happens. But your Silicon Valley overlords are pleased — you win a cookie.

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs.

  28. By the logic of this article, libertarians should stop fighting against gun bans, because people will still get guns even if they’re illegal!

    1. Worse, by the logic presented by Robby the Nazi’s weren’t out to get the jews because George Soros worked for them. I mean if you’re going to ignore all evidence for one anecdote why not go big.

  29. Great article.
    Next Monday I expect a detailed analysis of how the responses to the convention are handled on social media.

  30. Yeah because if they did censor the RNC then you would have to shut the fuck up about how wrong you were.

    Apply your logic to anything else and you’ll see how stupid it is. Someone disguises bad faith actions and delays overt displays until they know they can get away with it, call anyone who doesn’t trust these bad faith actors conspiracy theorists. You would have been one of those useful idiots in Nazi Germany in the 30s who thought Nazis could be reasoned with.

  31. Bullcrap! Big Tech continues to filter anything that goes against the standard Marxist agenda and especially anything pertaining to the fake pandemic. It’s got nothing to do with the silly convention or the Repubs. Web sites cannot be found in searches, and stories are being ripped off the Internet. Comments are being deleted and various pathways to articles being blocked. Where do we see ANY presentations on the TV news or major social sites that counter the fake pandemic? There are none.

  32. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

  33. This is Really Good oputunity for everyone who wana make a big amount at home own laptop And make your family happy so can u do>>>>Go to my page.

Please to post comments