Media is Really Getting Upset About Remaining “Social Media Disinfo”

Basically, everyone who was some kind of a “media figure” is totally banned from social media at this point. You’ve still got Ben Shapiro, Jack Posobiec, Ezra Levant, Mike Cernovich, and Paul Joseph Watson, all of whom are RNC shills, but do post some things opposed to the narrative. The reason these people are kept around, probably, is that they keep people in line. They are also all neocons, who support military action against Iran and China – and I guess that might become useful in the future.

But overall, social media has been sterilized. There isn’t really a lot going on.

Still, the media is outraged that anything is going on, so they spend a lot of time hunting for people who make any sort of minor infraction against the state orthodoxy.

The AP has a piece up entitled “NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week.” Those are their caps.

Here are the stories they took issue with.

CLAIM: A new tax policy allows the IRS to “monitor all transactions involving bank accounts worth more than $600.” Another new policy taxes all payments of more than $600 made through applications like PayPal and Venmo.

CLAIM: The owner of five restaurants in Terminal C at Denver International Airport told employees they needed to get vaccinated for COVID-19 by Nov. 1 or they would be fired. None of the cooks, dishwashers, bussers or hosts showed up to work, so there were no restaurants open in Terminal C. The owner immediately sent an email reversing the vaccine mandate.

CLAIM: A Delta Airlines pilot who had recently been vaccinated for COVID-19 died mid-flight within the last 10 days, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing.

CLAIM: A 2018 study that looked at the effectiveness of N95 masks versus medical masks found that masks don’t stop the spread of viruses.

CLAIM: Video shows people dropping “dead” outside a COVID-19 vaccination clinic in London after receiving a shot.

CLAIM: Car seats are being left in public places as a sex trafficking ploy to kidnap women.

The only one of those stories that I’d actually heard of this week was the first one, and it is indeed true that the IRS is requiring reports from banks on all accounts containing $600, and they are indeed claiming that this is a way to prevent “the rich” from dodging taxes. The AP’s explanation for this was a semantics game about the meaning of “snooping” and “reporting.”

The rest of these stories I’ve not heard of, and most of them do not sound true.

But the point is: these people have become completely and utterly obsessed with preventing anyone, anywhere from saying literally anything at all that they have not approved of.

I’ve mused that I think it’s likely that fact-checker websites like Snopes spread their own fake memes so they can debunk them. Just so, the media is now on the lookout for any sort of thing that goes against the narrative – true or not – that they can manipulate for their reports on how people shouldn’t be allowed to say things on social media.

There is fake information on social media, just as any social situation contains lies and confusion – that’s a part of human nature. However, the “misinformation” coming from social media pales in comparison to the disinformation coming from the mainstream media. They even basically admit this. They admit that they invented that entire Russian collusion hoax and talked about it for two years.

The point is: this isn’t really that important. People are free to believe or not believe whatever they want. There is no “threat of social media disinformation,” and the claim of a “threat” is set up as an excuse to censor true content – or to actually prevent people from disagreeing with the government/media.

For example: no one on earth doesn’t know that Anthony Fauci thinks that coronavirus vaccines are “safe and effective.” Everyone knows that he thinks that and everyone knows that the media and the government say that he is the Vicar of Science.

However, some people don’t agree with this assessment.

This turns into a really complicated situation, logically, where when they say “we have to stop disinformation,” they are actually saying “we have to force people to agree with us.”

This is then not about people not having access to the official information. I could actually understand a situation where the government said “we need to make sure everyone has access to our official information.” But everyone can turn on the TV or go to any news website and find this information.

If people decide to seek out alternative views, then that is their choice.

What they are then saying is that the people with alternative views are somehow polluting the minds of people, and controlling their thoughts, forcing them to believe in something false against their will.

This is all confusing and it isn’t reasonable. You can’t have a free society where people are not allowed to think freely and make their own decisions about what they believe. Obviously, in a free society, where free thought is allowed, people are going to come to different conclusions about different things. If you believe in the concept of absolute truth, as Christians believe, then that means that some people are going to be wrong about some issues.

What the government/media is doing is saying that they are able to dictate what is true, and then saying that you’re not allowed to disagree with them. This is really a hardcore extremist position for anyone to take.

That is at the core of any of these discussions about “misinformation.” They flood the discussion with gibberish, like “oh someone on TikTok is spreading a rumor about people getting kidnapped in parking lots” or whatever. But what they are actually saying, at the core of the matter, is that it is against the rules for you to think differently than they tell you to think.


This is a concept I’ve been meaning to elaborate on for a while, and I don’t think this article is very good. I will rewrite it at some point. But yeah – they are literally saying that they are the arbiters of reality and that you can’t disagree with them.

The secondary issue, which might even be more important, is that an institution that believes it is capable of arbitrating reality itself, and refuses to allow any form of questions to be lodged against it, is very quickly going to enter into a death spiral. It is not sustainable to indefinitely maintain the position that you are able to determine the nature of reality itself.