Last week, Fox News contributor Tyrus sat down with Donald Trump for an exclusive interview for the latest episode of Maintaing With Tyrus on OutKick. The conversation focused on manhood, religion, schools, surviving an assassination attempt and also delved into who Trump is as a person.

A reader contacted OutKick to alert us that when they tried to share the YouTube link of the interview on Facebook, they were unable to do so and instead received a message stating the following: "Your content couldn't be shared because this goes against our Community Standards."

In response, we tried to share the video ourselves and were met with the same notification (see below). OutKick heard from dozens of people across America who had the same experience. //

The Trump-Tyrus interview wasn't the only video that people had trouble sharing. After the initial issue was pointed out, we tried to post Clay Travis' interview with Donald Trump from the Alabama-Georgia game earlier this month. The link to that interview was also blocked from sharing on Facebook and supposedly violated the same "Community Standards" as the Tyrus interview.

Perhaps you've seen the video of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg going around where he tells citizens to refrain from sending drones into the air, or piloting aircraft in the area where Helene has left a path of destruction.

"There's also some safety issues that come up," said Buttigieg. "For example, temporary flight restrictions to make sure the airspace is clear for any flights or drone activity that might be involved in helping to allow those emergency responders to do their job."

Brandon Morse @TheBrandonMorse
·
This video is the government attempting to stop footage from getting out that shows the extent of their ineptitude and halt civilians help so there’s no contrast to highlight it’s failure. Full stop.

12:26 PM · Oct 3, 2024

The excuse is that you need to keep your drone or aircraft out of the sky in order to allow emergency workers to do their jobs and not complicate matters. That would be a valid thing to suggest... if there was an effective rescue operation going on, but there's not. As I covered in my last VIP article, FEMA is out of disaster relief money because it was spent on illegals.

If you're like me, you probably didn't see this as a federal official attempting to help people. Given that this is the Biden-Harris administration, you probably became suspicious pretty quickly that something else was likely behind Buttigieg's words.

Personally, this feels a lot like a call for censorship, even if it's just an attempt to encourage it through "advice."

If you want to know what the real story on the ground is, the government isn't going to tell you. Their response has been disastrous, and it makes them look awful. The less you see of this disastrous response, the better for them. They can craft their own narrative where they were the ever-present heroes working hard to help victims.

But it would be an egregious lie. The real heroes are the ones out there helping their fellow civilians in any way they can. Private pilots are attempting to rescue stranded victims. Food and water are being delivered where it can be effective, and this is in spite of government disaster groups telling them to stop. //

Maximus Decimus Cassius
19 hours ago
The "authorities" are trying to enforce no-fly zones for everything--helicopters, drones, whatever--to prevent assistance to the stricken. This is beyond treason.

Lets just call it what it is: government sponsored genocide. //

Vigilo
17 hours ago
This is like the Biden regime response to the Maui wild fire. "No cameras allowed". //

Sancho Panza
18 hours ago
The idea of citizens taking direct action to make things better for their communities, neighbors, families and selves has uncomfortable connotations for fascists. They feel it keenly, and instinctively suppress it any way they can.

A clear bias has been uncovered in the AI image creator Image Creator from Microsoft Bing, also known as Microsoft Designer. The online tool will allow the creation of images with Kamala Harris for President content, but will not allow the same for Donald Trump.

My take at the time? Zuck sees something coming. He's the CEO of one of the largest social media corporations in the world. He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good, and he doesn't care which, just keep posting for goodness’ sake. All those posts probably indicate that Donald Trump is likely going to win the election handily, and he's preparing his business for a Trump administration that will likely be seeking some retribution.

In my opinion, this is Zuck smearing lambs blood over his door so that spirit of retribution passes over him without trouble. //

The difference is that Zuck is not nearly as bold or combative as Musk is willing to be. Zuck is far more corporate in his approach. Cautious and careful is his strategy. You'll never find Zuck telling people to "go f*** themselves" when they try to screw him over, at least not in public.

Moreover, I think that Musk is blazing a trail that Zuck is quietly following. There is success in resistance to the left, to the system that has tried controlling everything. Zuck's "libertarianism" could be a signal that he's pulling away from the controlling aspects of the expectations put upon him by leftist governments. //

Of course, this could all be fake and Zuck is being Zuck, bending and moving with the socio-political climate. Once it's in the air that leftism is in vogue or gaining power, he could very well revert back to the pro-censorship guy he started as.

I would posit that it is far more than Democrats trying to absolve themselves of their contributions to America’s current political divisions and tensions. Indeed, I believe it is an effort to silence those who oppose their ideology.

People pretending that Trump brought the assassination attempts on himself are, consciously or unconsciously, sending the message that if a prominent individual forcefully opposes progressive views, then they could also face violence or other types of punishments. Even further, any negative consequences for expressing their views are their own fault for daring to argue against progressivism.

To put it simply, they want to blame the assassination attempt on Trump because they want you to shut up.

This isn’t just about deflecting blame from themselves. Their arguments carry with it a covert threat: If you don’t shut up, something like this can happen to you. //

St. Joseph, Terror of Demons
19 hours ago
It might be even darker than Jeff posited. The media are actually saying Trump is not only asking for assassination because of his rhetoric, but he deserves it.

American Deplorable ™
10 hours ago
A deep fake outlawing deep fakes.

The irony is almost as thick as the hair gel.

Guest “Make Orwell Fiction Again!” by David Middleton.

David Blackmon is a highly regarded energy and oil industry analyst. His work has often been featured here on WUWT. He is was one of my LinkedIn connections.

Dear LinkedIn: Why Have I Been Suspended? by David Blackmon

https://open.substack.com/pub/blackmon/p/dear-linkedin-why-have-i-been-suspended

While it is possible that someone hacked his account, I think it’s more likely that a ski instructor, pilot/songwriter or some other LinkedIn-recognized energy experts complained about something he posted.

David Blackmon’s Substack is very appropriately titled “Energy Transition Absurdities.”

This is the difference between debate--even aggressive debate--and censorship. It is one thing to attack Kamala Harris for "destroying the country" and quite another to say that President Trump should be "eliminated." It is one thing to criticize overheated rhetoric, and another to say that a former president has invited an assassination on himself. It is one thing to say that Donald J. Trump's arguments about the election of 2020 are wrong; it is another thing to attempt to remove him from the ballot over it.

It is one thing to say that pets are not, in fact being eaten, and another thing to say that anyone who disagrees is trying to murder people. Dissent, even vigorous dissent, is a great tradition of the United States. Censorship is not.

For the next 7 weeks of this campaign, I will vigorously defend your right to speak your mind. I believe you have every right to criticize me and Donald J. Trump, even if you say terrible or untrue things about us. But when I ask you to "tone down the rhetoric" it's not about being nice--our citizens have every right to be mean, even if I don't like it--or empty platitudes.

Instead, I'm asking all of us to reject censorship. Reject the idea that you can control what other people think and say. Embrace persuasion of your fellow citizens over silencing them--either through the powers of Big Tech or through moral blackmail.

I think this will make our public debate much better. But there's something else. Reject censorship and you reject political violence. Embrace censorship, and you will inevitably embrace violence on its behalf.

The reason is simple. The logic of censorship leads directly to one place, for there is only one way to permanently silence a human being: put a bullet in his brain.

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg’s sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.

Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerberg is really, really sorry.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss Facebook’s record at length as a critical player in the anti-free speech alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces.

In prior testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and other congressional committees, I noted that Zuckerberg continued to refuse to release this information after Elon Musk exposed this system in his release of the “Twitter Files.”

Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free speech figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company’s similar conduct but stayed silent.

When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.

Brazilian Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Elon Musk's social media platform X, via a legal representative in the country, to suspend the accounts of political enemies (in other words, supporters of Bolsonaro), who the government is investigating. If the X lawyer disobeyed, he would be arrested--and there would be personal consequences for X owner Elon Musk, too:

Mr Moraes had ordered X accounts he has accused of spreading disinformation - many supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsanaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.

After X owner Musk criticised Mr Moraes, the judge ordered 100,000 reais ($19,774; £15,670) fines a day for any account that X reactivated, and stressed the possible liability of the company's legal representatives in Brazil if this were to happen.

He also put Mr Musk under investigation for charges including the obstruction of justice.

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg's belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret as a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg's sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee... //

Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free speech figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company's similar conduct but stayed silent.

When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.

When the censorship system was recently put before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri and the justices asked about evidence of coordination and pressure from the government. In Murthy, states successfully showed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an injunction.

The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censorship, and sent the case back down to the lower court.

Zuckerberg still remained silent. //

Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free speech figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company's similar conduct but stayed silent.

When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.

When the censorship system was recently put before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri and the justices asked about evidence of coordination and pressure from the government. In Murthy, states successfully showed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an injunction.

The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censorship, and sent the case back down to the lower court.

Zuckerberg still remained silent. //

Facebook was not silent when it came to censorship, or "content moderation" as the company prefers to call it. While Zuckerberg now expresses "regret" at not speaking out sooner, his company previously sought to sell Americans on censorship. //

For years, young people have been taught that free speech is harmful and triggering. We are raising of generation of speech-phobics and Zuckerberg and Facebook wanted to tap into that generation to get people to stop fearing the censor and love "content modification." It was time, as Joshan and his friends told us, to "change" with our computers.

Now, Zuckerberg and Meta want people to know that they were "pressured" to censor and really regret their role in silencing opposing voices.

It is the feigned regret that comes with forced exposure.

The Facebook files now put the lie to past claims of the Biden administration and many Democrats in Congress. For years, members attacked some of us who testified that we had no evidence of coordination or pressure from the government. At the same time, they opposed any effort to investigate and release such evidence.

The evidence is now undeniable. //

Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of the chilling scope of this effort. Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing "our cognitive infrastructure." That includes combating "malinformation," or information "based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate."

Consider that for a second: true facts are censorable if the government views them as misleading.

As I write in my book, President Joe Biden is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. His administration helped create a censorship system that was described by one federal judge as "Orwellian." Vice President Kamala Harris has been entirely supportive of that effort.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was one of the principal campaign issues. It should be so again. Harris should have to take ownership of the censorship system maintained by the administration.

George Washington University Law School professor and Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley agrees. In a Tuesday column for Fox News, Turley tore Zuckerberg's feigned contriteness to shreds.

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg's belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret as a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg's sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, the parent company that owns Facebook, sent a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, on Monday acknowledging that Meta censored Americans at the behest of the Biden-Harris administration and throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election. //

House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 @JudiciaryGOP
·
Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things:

1. Biden-Harris Admin "pressured" Facebook to censor Americans.

2. Facebook censored Americans.

3. Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Big win for free speech.
6:44 PM · Aug 26, 2024

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, who previously penned a Fourth of July masterpiece of a decision in the Murthy v. Missouri (f/k/a Missouri v. Biden) First Amendment case, issued a ruling declaring that Kennedy and his charity had standing to pursue a claim against the government for violating their First Amendment rights.

If exposing money behind Arabella-aligned organizations is the price for outing conservative donors, that’s a trade Democrat operatives would gladly make. //

All of this raises a question: If “dark money” is so beneficial to Democrats, why do the party’s leaders consistently push for new and expansive donor disclosure laws?

The answer may be simple: Even when the left outspends the right, the value of silencing conservatives far exceeds the value of spending by left-leaning nonprofits. //

By establishing nonprofit donor databases, the DISCLOSE Act would open the door for Democrats to potentially create target lists of conservative donors and businesses to harass and bully into silence. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer infamously put it years ago, the “deterrent effect” of disclosure “should not be underestimated.” //

Even if some left-leaning donors are exposed, leftist ideas would still receive enormous platforms in the media, entertainment industry, academia, and government bodies. Conservatives, despite being outspent by the left in recent election cycles, are uniquely dependent on their donors and nonprofits to support their intellectuals and promote their ideas; disclosure mandates would be akin to declaring open season on these conservative institutions.

Istandforfreedom
2 hours ago
“What Tim Walz says in that clip and the ignorance he shows…”
Tim Walz is NOT ignorant; he knows exactly what he saying. “Hate speech” and “misinformation” is ANYTHING that displeases Walz, Harrisand their Marxists regime and spells the END of Free Speech and Freedom asa whole.

While some might have some points of contention when it comes to whether he is truly fostering free speech, it is clear that X is not the same platform it was before he took over. I have my own criticism of some of the changes. But it seems clear that more right-leaning voices are able to make their views known without the rampant censorship that was happening under prior management.

Moreover, as I stated previously, none of the leftists who are whining about Musk allowing more right-leaning content to flourish on X had trouble with supposed “misinformation” when the left was dominating the platform. Very few of them criticized then-Twitter when it suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story. Almost none took issue with the content moderation team that targeted people with right-wing views.

The author’s criticism of Musk’s conflicts with governments over censorship also reveals the true motivation behind their complaints. These folks have no problem with the United Kingdom, Venezuela, and other countries suppressing content because most of their attacks on free speech go one way: Toward those expressing conservative views.

The notion that Musk is somehow turning X into a haven for right-wingers is silly. But on one level, it is understandable. To those who are accustomed to leftists having supremacy over social media, allowing more speech from both sides might seem like propping up right-wing content. When a playing field is not level, creating more balance might seem as if it is skewed toward the side that was previously suppressed.

The truth is that folks on the left have only themselves to blame for Musk inserting himself into digital media. The left created Musk like the Joker created Batman in the 1989 film starring Michael Keaton. There would have been no need for Musk to take over X if those in charge had not actively suppressed content based on political viewpoints.

The idea that a reporter would think that the White House has any legal means to interfere with any American, particularly a candidate for the presidency in an election year, saying any damn thing they want to demonstrates how thoroughly corrupt and fascist-adjacent the mainstream press has become. The fact that a reporter from a newspaper that shared a Pulitzer prize for pushing a totally discredited hoax thinks he has any moral ground to protest "misinformation" is the official death knell of irony.

To the extent that 'misinformation' is a problem, Ground Zero of that problem is the mainstream press. They are the ones who insisted that an obviously demented and sometimes drugged Joe Biden was completely in control of his faculties. //

Giving the yahoos in the press corps a license to police misinformation is like giving a three-year-old a can of gasoline and a lighter. //

RiverRev
29 minutes ago
I think I trust the three year old more.

Federal agencies used the pretext of foreign interference in the 2020 election to surveil and suppress domestic news. //

America’s speech police are reassembling to once again influence our elections. At the same time the security state is creating potential pretexts for renewed censorship by issuing warnings of cyberattacks that could “hinder public access to election information,” they are also reprising old claims of coming Russian election interference on behalf of Donald Trump.

The little-noticed development comes in a report from the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the DOJ’s efforts to “Coordinate Information Sharing About Foreign Malign Influence Threats to U.S. Elections” — a euphemism for the chief law enforcement agency’s prior censorship activities.

Huge news on Thursday as the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) announced that it will discontinue operations of its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative in the face of the antitrust suit filed against the entities by Elon Musk. On Tuesday, Musk filed suit in federal court in the Northern District of Texas against GARM and WFA. //

The suit followed a 39-page House report issued in July setting forth the harms caused by GARM. The House Judiciary Committee shared Thursday's announcement on its Twitter/X account.

House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 @JudiciaryGOP
·
#BREAKING: The “Global Alliance for Responsible Media” is discontinuing.

Big win for the First Amendment.

Big win for oversight.
12:42 PM · Aug 8, 2024. //

Now, before we get overly excited, let's be mindful that just because "GARM" appears to be folding, that doesn't mean the motivation behind its inception is going anywhere,... //

anon-7lqi
11 hours ago
What GARM was doing was so indefensible that just filing one suite made them shut it down.

Think about that. //

anon-1tw9 11 hours ago edited

It’s my understanding GARM arose from the ashes of a previous organization that folded when the pressure came, only to re-emerge with a new name, GARM. So it is that I believe GARM is forthright being renamed and will continue on.