Modern Newspeak: How Internet Censors Are Making Sure You Hear Only One Side of the Story

By Daisy Luther

It’s not breaking news that the Internet censors have been hard at work to silence voices that are in opposition to the mainstream media agenda. But after the influence that social media had on the last election, things are going to a whole new level. The Internet, that last bastion of truly free speech, isn’t very free anymore.

We’re watching the evolution of Newspeak right before our very eyes as the Internet strives to silence any voices that oppose their carefully crafted stories of how guns are bad, there are 291 genders, and anyone who isn’t a liberal is an evil Nazi racist.

If you aren’t familiar with the term “Newspeak,” it’s from George Orwell’s prophetic novel, 1984.

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? (source)

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have all been participating in a full-on purge of not just conservative voices, but the voices of anyone who is loudly anti-establishment. Any Internet personality who is pro-gun or anti-socialism can fully expect to be censored. If you go against the agenda, you will be silenced.

Apparently, we have become too discerning for their liking and we can’t be trusted to hear both sides of the story and decide what seems most accurate.

Let me preface this: It isn’t about being a fan of websites like Infowars or Natural News. It’s about being a fan of free speech. It’s about getting the truth instead of a carefully scripted narrative.

In this video, Ben Swann, who is mercifully back from a long, unexplained hiatus, gives us the facts on how the Internet censors are striving to ensure we hear only one side of the story.

I’m certainly not in the same category as Mike Adams or Alex Jones, who have hundreds of thousands of followers, but even I have experienced this censorship. Facebook frequently refuses to allow me to pay to boost posts that might be controversial in nature, Back in 2016, I posted an article containing 2 videos, one of which was quickly removed from YouTube. It was about the threat of civil unrest to the Milwaukee suburbs after a cop killed a black man. The media portrayed the man’s sister as warmly trying to prevent the unrest, urging people not to burn down their own neighborhoods. But they cut her rant right before she urged people to burn down the suburbs instead. I quoted her as saying:

Burnin down sh*t ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down sh*t we need in our community. Take that sh*t to the suburbs. Burn that sh*t down! We need our sh*t! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it. We need our food. We need our gas. Y’all wanna hurt somebody you take that sh*t further out! (source)

But somehow, I was the one who was in the doghouse for quoting what she said and showing both of the videos. My article was reported as “hate speech” a number of times and Facebook removed it. Not only did they remove it, they banned me from posting for a week, giving me a “warning” about hate speech. I also got put in Facebook jail once when someone asked what Godwin’s Law was and I used the word Nazi because it hurt someone’s feelings who was from Germany when I said the word “Hitler.” I could not make this stuff up.

A lot of you may be wondering why alternative media sources use social media at all, and the answer is – we have to if we want to be heard. If we want to be competitive and we want our stories to be out there, we must go where the people are. And there are millions of people on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

But purges like this are why it’s particularly important that you sign up for email lists if you want to hear the real stories. (You can sign up for mine right here.) And even then, it isn’t a guarantee you won’t be the victim of censors. During the election, for research purposes, I signed up for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s email lists. Clinton’s ended up in my inbox without fail, while Trump’s went to my spam folder, no matter how often I marked it as “not spam.”

This is something we have to stop now. We have to speak up and let these social media outlets know that we aren’t going to put up with their censorship and their control of the national narrative.

We’re watching 1984 unfold right before our very eyes.

Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, leaving all links intact, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio. Daisy is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared. Daisy is the publisher of The Cheapskate’s Guide to the Galaxy, a monthly frugality newsletter, and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, She is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie. You can find Daisy on FacebookPinterest, and Twitter.

Also Read: YouTube Terminated Activist Post Unblemished Channel Without Warning


3 members likely abused national security to unmask Trump campaign staff

Jamie White | – MARCH 12, 2018

A group of nearly 50 Obama administration officials have formed a think tank called National Security Action to attack President Trump’s national security platform.

The group didn’t mince words in their mission statement:

“National Security Action is dedicated to advancing American global leadership and opposing the reckless policies of the Trump administration that endanger our national security and undermine U.S. strength in the world.”

Specifically, the group’s “liberal foreign policy goals” include injecting climate change into foreign policy, denouncing Trump’s leadership, advocating for open borders and mass immigration and perpetuating the phony Russian collusion narrative.

Obama’s former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton campaign aide Jake Sullivan are among the founders of the group.

“This organization uses the acronym NSA, which is ironic,” wrote Fox News contributor Fred Fleitz on Sunday.

“Three of its founding members – Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Samantha Power – likely were involved in abusing intelligence from the federal NSA (National Security Agency) to unmask the names of Trump campaign staff from intelligence reports and to leak NSA intercepts to the media to hurt Donald Trump politically.”

Its mission statement is laughable given ISIS rose to power, North Korean missile development surged, Russia annexed Crimea, and Libya collapsed – all under Obama’s watch.

Meanwhile, since Trump was elected, the military reclaimed 98% of the territory taken by ISIS, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un is poised to broker an unprecedented peace deal with the U.S., and U.S-Israel relations have been restored after the president recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

YOUTUBE ‘Mistakenly’ Pulls Right-Wing Channels…


By Mark Bergen

YouTube’s new moderators, brought in to spot fake, misleading and extreme videos, stumbled in one of their first major tests, mistakenly removing some clips and channels in the midst of a nationwide debate on gun control.

The Google division said in December it would assign more than 10,000 people to moderate content after a year of scandals over fake and inappropriate content on the world’s largest video site.

In the wake of the Feb. 14 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, some YouTube moderators mistakenly removed several videos and some channels from right-wing, pro-gun video producers and outlets.

Some YouTube channels recently complained about their accounts being pulled entirely. On Wednesday, the Outline highlighted accounts, including Titus Frost, that were banned from the video site. Frost tweeted on Wednesday that a survivor of the shooting, David Hogg, is an actor. Jerome Corsi of right-wing conspiracy website Infowars said on Tuesday that YouTube had taken down one of his videos and disabled his live stream.

Shutting entire channels would have marked a sweeping policy change for YouTube, which typically only removes channels in extreme circumstances and focuses most disciplinary action on specific videos. But YouTube said some content was taken down by mistake. The site didn’t address specific cases and it’s unclear if it meant to take action on the accounts of Frost and Corsi.

“As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals,” a YouTube spokeswoman wrote in an email. “We’re continuing to enforce our existing policies regarding harmful and dangerous content, they have not changed. We’ll reinstate any videos that were removed in error.”

The misstep pulls YouTube, Google and parent Alphabet Inc. deeper into a toxic political fights over gun control, fake and extreme content, and whether internet companies should be responsible for what third parties post on their services. The episode also shows how the huge video site continues to struggle with policing the service and how difficult it is to spot troubling content and decide whether the material should be taken down.

Gun reform calls since the shooting have sparked a rash of conspiracy theories on the web about the student activists. YouTube was criticized last week after promoting a video with a title that suggested Hogg, the teen survivor of the Florida school shooting, was a paid actor. The clip contained footage from an authoritative news source, leading YouTube’s software-based screening system to misclassify it. After YouTube was alerted to the video, it was pulled.

In the wake of the Florida shooting, Google and other internet companies are facing external pressure to remove the National Rifle Association’s NRA TV channel from their video streaming services. To date, YouTube and other services haven’t pulled the NRA’s official channel.

YouTube’s official policy says that “harmful or dangerous” and “hateful” content can violate its guidelines. If video creators break the rules three times within three months, YouTube terminates the account.

Alex Jones, who runs Infowars and has pushed conspiracy theories about school shootings, is the most outspoken self-proclaimed victim of YouTube. He said this week that YouTube told him his account faces two strikes. On Tuesday, an Infowars article stated that Google was “purging conservative media,” claiming that “CNN and other news outlets” were lobbying Google to terminate the Infowars channel.

Social media bow to pressure and censor dissident voices

Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, accused of enabling US President Donald Trump’s rise to power through “Russian meddling,” are facing pressure to de-platform heretics. This has raised fears for the safety of free speech in the US.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this past weekend, media crusader James O’Keefe headlined an hour-long panel on social media censorship, arguing that it targeted mostly conservatives.

“They really make sure you don’t see any differing views,” O’Keefe said at the panel.

Last week, the blogging platform Medium deleted a number of accounts, including those of Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer, described by The Hill as “prominent far-right figures.” The purge took place after Medium replaced a commitment to free speech in its terms of service in favor of fighting “online hate, abuse, harassment, and disinformation.”

Though Medium would not comment on individual account bans, it is notable that Cernovich’s account was deleted after he was named in a Newsweek article that blamed the “alt-right,” overseas social media bots and “Russians” for the ouster of Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) over sexual misconduct. Newsweek retracted the story after criticism that it could not be substantiated.

A number of YouTube creators have complained that the video platform has demonetized basically anything that isn’t deemed “family friendly,” including political dissent. Another crackdown followed the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, after the top-ranking video on the site featured accusations that some of the students were “crisis actors.”

Yet if YouTube simply censored any videos even referring to conspiracy theories, that would surely present a new problem.  After all, wouldn’t it also undermine efforts to debunk them?


Conservative critics accuse the social media giants of being run by Democrats. There is certainly evidence pointing in that direction, from the involvement of Alphabet (Google’s parent company) CEO Eric Schmidt with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Obama presidency, to Twitter’s admission it censored the hashtags about WikiLeaks’ publication of revealing emails from Clinton’s campaign chief John Podesta in the run-up to the November 2016 vote. Those emails also revealed the commitment of several Facebook executives to get Clinton elected.

After Clinton lost to Trump, however, the three social media giants found themselves in the crosshairs of Congress. Many Republicans joined the chorus of Democrats accusing the social networks of enabling alleged Russian activity.

“You created these platforms… and now they’re being misused,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) told the executives of Facebook, Google, and Twitter during a hearing in October 2017. “And you have to be the ones who do something about it — or we will.”

So far, “doing something” seems to consist mostly of purging “Russian bots,” as identified by the either the social media companies themselves or an alliance of Democrats and neo-conservatives ousted from power by Trump, and now seeing Russians behind every hashtag.


Censorious actions also include what activists call “de-platforming” of people singled out for unacceptable or offensive opinions by the ad-hoc online mobs. For example, after the Florida school shooting angry Twitterati have successfully badgered a number of businesses into canceling discounts they previously offered to members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Amazon also found itself under pressure to drop the “NRA TV” channel from its platform.


In a recent interview, former Google engineer James Damore speculated that the climate at social media companies have an atmosphere resemblesreminiscent of college campuses,universities. Such locations which have also seen crackdowns on freedom of expression. in recent times.

“It was very much like a college campus,” Damore told the Washington Examiner. “And they tried to make it like a college campus where you would live at Google essentially, where they have all your food and all the amenities, and once you start living there you aren’t able to disconnect, and so you feel like my words were a threat against your family. That was part of the fervor, I think.”

Damore was purged from Mountain View over a memo in which he questioned the company’s  practices when it came to. The heart of the issue was diversity.


While the social media companies may hope the lawmakers would be appeased by an occasional purge of unpopular voices, another danger is headed their way:. tThe legacy media, is aiming to recapture its hold on audiences.

On Monday, CNN president Jeff Zucker toldaddressed the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. His thrust was that government should look into Google and Facebook “monopolies” if journalism is to survive.

“In a Google and Facebook world, monetization of digital and mobile continues to be more difficult than we would have expected or liked,” Zucker said, according to Variety. “I think we need help from the advertising world and from the technology world to find new ways to monetize digital content, otherwise good journalism will go away.”

Tempting as it would beIt is tempting  to quip about CNN’s tenuous relationship with “good journalism.” At this time, doing so would be self-defeating as the chances are it would get one quicklybe a short-cut to getting purged from Google, Twitter or Facebook.