"I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire
In our digital age, information is everywhere and it's abundant. One Google search highlights that. With just a tap of the mouse a floodgate of information arrives on our virtual doorstep, begging us to click, knowing in mere seconds, humans have the power to "x" out or choose to delve deeper.
Powerful influences – governments corporations, media – are attempting to control and manipulate the information we can access, making digging deeper not always possible.
Social media often removes posts on controversial concepts and theories - labeling them as misinformation. This limits our access to all the beautiful and balanced perspectives, opinions and information in circulation. Is this an attempt to manipulate what we think?
We've heard the argument ...
What's wrong with a little censorship? It protects people from misinformation and spreading untruths.
The question we ask then, is there a single source of this so-called truth and if so, who?
One person's misinformation is another person's truth.
Consider a neighbor, family member or friend who has different views on how to live life - be it religion, politics, health choices or parenting. Now, imagine that person having the authority to control what information you can access, allowing you to see only what aligns with their beliefs. This scenario is a reflection of the current state in our world.
We are living through a modern-day book burning as Google, YouTube and others censor & control the information we have access to.
How do we get to the truth?
We believe one way is through open, uncensored discussion and debate. In the video below "What's Wrong With Censorship", Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law at Columbia University warns that centralized censorship seriously jeopardizes truth and he encourages all of us to stand up for freedom of speech, especially for those with whom you disagree.
Modern-day censorship is a complicated issue. It's balancing free speech while curbing harmful content, while additionally allowing for diverse viewpoints, debate, conversation and respectful disagreement. Many believe free speech is for them, just not their adversary. We believe the whole point is we should all be free to explore all kinds of ideas, viewpoints and opinions, at any time.
Only in that way do we land at our OWN truth.
Russ, Lesley & The SOTA Team
Censorship Under the Guise of
FACT-CHECKING
While modern-day book burning doesn't involve literal flames and paper,
the underlying methods of censorship remain present in various forms in the digital era.
Censorship today mimics historical book burning. Just in digital form.
Nowadays, we have a lot of information available online. But as different groups try to control what gets said and shared, there are more rules about what you can do and see on the internet.
Ionic~Colloidal Silver is apparently on "their" radar.
Google & YouTube Define "Medical Misinformation" ultimately limiting what we can see.
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
Censorship in natural health is growing, leading to the removal of information about alternative medicine and holistic health. Major platforms like YouTube and Facebook have removed content they consider misinformation, including natural remedies and treatments for various health challenges.
This has made it tougher for natural health practitioners and supporters - who believe it limits public access to a variety of health information and restricts free speech. Many individuals rely on online searches for medical information and now find themselves denied valuable health options and silenced in discussing their health choices openly.
Censoring well-known health practitioners prevents the public from accessing valuable insights and potential health solutions. Some natural health advocates who have faced shadow banning or de-platforming include: Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Patrick Vickers (Gerson Clinic), Green Med Info and Natural News just to name a few.
While the intention behind the Medical Misinformation Policy is to protect public health, it also raises significant concerns about freedom of speech and the availability of diverse health information. These days, it's increasingly difficult to access reliable information on natural health topics. With this policy in place, there's a fear that our unrestricted access to health and wellness information will be completely eliminated.
Historically, those in power have resorted to book burning to influence and control public thought. The materials destroyed typically offer alternative perspectives that could broaden people's understanding and awareness.
"The burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question … "
"In some cases, the destroyed works are irreplaceable and their burning constitutes a severe loss to cultural heritage."
"... the instance of book burning becomes emblematic of a harsh and oppressive regime which is seeking to censor or silence some aspect of prevailing culture."
"The burning of books has a long history of being a tool utilized by authorities both secular and religious, in their efforts to suppress dissenting or heretical views that are believed to pose a threat to the prevailing order."
Modern Day Censorship: Piers Morgan vs Steven Pinker
Piers Morgan Uncensored is joined by psychologist and author Steven Pinker to discuss the state of the modern world, including the problems with cancel culture, the modern day's idea of free speech, why the world is often negatively perceived due to the news cycle and the fight against free speech in university campuses.
Piers asks Steven about his previous comments from a couple of years ago suggesting the world has never been in a better place. Steven says what he meant was that the world is in a lot better place than shown by the media.
?
Why Elon Musk Became Twitter's Largest Shareholder
Elon Musk becoming the largest shareholder in Twitter (now X) certainly raises some eyebrows, but what caused him to make the move? And what could it all mean for Twitter's future?
That's why we need open, uncensored discussion and debate. Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law at Columbia University, sheds light on this alarming censorship trend.
(0)
