CNN lies about anti-conservative bias in big tech

The allegations of anti-conservative bias of social media companies, big tech companies, and mainstream media is not a "right-wing offensive but a reaction to the intentional suppression and censorship perpetrated by those companies against conservative views.

On Oct. 14, the New York Post began publishing a series of stories on alleged misdeeds by Hunter Biden, and ties of those misdeeds to his father Joe Biden. The evidence to back up those claims was detailed and provided in the Post's stories. Those stories were prevented from being shared on Twitter, and that site locked the Post out of their account.

The Post is still locked out, pending the deletion of their tweets sharing their stories. Facebook engaged in suppression, preventing shares of the article from showing up on users' feeds. Those are facts, well admitted by both companies.

Project Veritas, in their classic, hidden camera fashion, spoke to executives and managers at Google who broke down how and why Google prevents conservative views from finding prominent space in both search results and in advertising.

Google's Cloud Technical Program Manager Ritesh Lakhar said outright that content was "skewed by the owners and drivers of the algorithm," and that "on one side, you have this professional or unprofessional attitude and on the other side, you have this ultra-leftist attitude, and your entire existence is questioned."

Google's ad side was revealed to have similar anti-conservative bias problems. Adriano Amaduzzi, an ad manager, said that Google can "stop right-wing parties from advertising." He detailed his experience of blocking pro-Brexit ads from buying space on the platform.

A poll showed that 71 percent of tech professionals admit to an anti-conservative bias in tech. Another expose showed that 90 percent of political donations given by big tech employees went to Democrat campaigns, and it turns out that there are many high ranking Twitter employees who would be happy to see bad things happen to Donald Trump. One of them wrote his wish that Trump "die in a fire."

House Republicans, led by Rep. Jim Jordan, allege that there's a bias as well. They cite their concern as one that ought to be concerning to all Americans, "Jeopardizing values essential to America’s civic tradition should cause bipartisan concern. All Americans should view suppression of free speech and lopsided censorship by apparently-neutral actors as dangerous."

Yet is it is primarily an issue that only worries conservatives, and it's not hard to see why—leftist speech does not have a problem gaining a foothold on big tech platforms or in media.

CNN's Brian Fung writes: "What began as complaints about anti-conservative censorship by social media companies has now evolved into outright allegations of election interference, as high-ranking Republicans have accused online platforms of helping Democrats by way of their content moderation decisions."

It's easy to see why—what began as a bias against conservative speech on platforms, a problem that appeared to be easily remediable once executives became aware of it, now seems to be a feature not a bug. Even the right-leaning think tank the Cato Institute was loathe to believe that there was an anti-conservative bias.

However, they were not faced with the intentional censorship of properly reported, researched stories that would be damaging to Democrat presidential hopes, or Twitter's partisan fact-checks, or Facebook's suppression of views they appear to disagree with.

Critics say that social media companies are private enterprises and that they can do as they please. And sure, as it stands right now, that's true. They are unlikely to fact-check CNN's story full of falsehoods, but private citizens, media companies that do not seek to protect leftist politicians, and those who report and engage in discourse from a conservative perspective, have a responsibility to call it out and not be cowed by big media or big tech.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BSnkpGYzJrU?feature=oembed