The Other Shoe Drops: How Will The MSM Deny Twitter’s Viewpoint Censorship Now?

Just as Ethics Alarms was flagging the frantic efforts among the left-biased news media and others to deny the obvious and accurate implications of Twitter’s Hunter Biden laptop story censorship—the social media platform deliberately used its power to mislead the public and bolster Democrats— New York Times refugee Bari Weiss dropped the next metaphorical shoe, reporting on more newly released Twitter documents that show its pre-Elon Musk regime was “creating blacklists, preventing disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limiting the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users” and all based on an anti-conservative, pro-progressive agenda.

I can’t wait to see how The Washington Post, Phillip Bump and TechDirt apply Yoo’s Rationalization (“It isn’t what it is”) to muddy the issue this time.

Bari Weiss revealed her conclusions from studying the evidence sent to her by Twitter Avenger Elon Musk in a Twitter stream like the one employed by Matt Taibbi in the earlier revelations—you know, about how the Hunter Biden laptop facts were censored, which the New YorkTimes, Washington Post and the news networks shrugged off as “a nothingburger” because it was “old news,” Hunter Biden didn’t matter, and the laptop story wouldn’t have changed the result of the election anyway, so who cares if was censored by Twitter, and yes, them too?

Continue reading

In Dedham, Massachusetts, A Library’s Christmas Tree Makes People “Uncomfortable”

So the board of library trustees and the library director responded to an undisclosed number of complaints by banning the tree, so nobody can enjoy it.

Ever since uber-athiest Madeleine Murray O’Hair’s lawsuit got the Supreme Court to rededicate itself to ensuring that national, state and local governments did not endorse a particular religion in defiance of the Constitution’s establishment cause, there has been a tug of war over how America should celebrate Christmas. Are office Christmas parties “insensitive”? Should elevators play “Joy to the World?” Is the greeting “Merry Christmas!” offensive to someone who isn’t a Christian?

Prior to Mrs. O’Hair’s attack, the balance between religious and secular elements at Christmas time was solid. Schools included traditional Christmas carols in their annual programs without anyone seriously regarding it as pro-Christian propaganda; Bing Crosby was as likely to sing “O Holy Night” as “White Christmas” on his TV Christmas specials. Then the lawsuits started flying over public crèche displays, and otherwise rational people began causing trouble. I remember a smart and generally sensible female executive at an association I worked for in the ’80s making a huge issue out of a “Christmas elves” staff gift exchange mandated by the executive director. She was Jewish, and felt “excluded” by “Christmas elves.” So the gimmick was renamed the “holiday pixies” program. What the heck are “holiday pixies?” Unless she was one, which I doubt, how did that make her feel more “included”? Her successful Christmas protest only managed to put a sour taste in everyone’s mouth and divide the staff, just as the current Christmas nonsense divides the country.

Continue reading

Scary Headlines From “The Great Stupid”

I couldn’t resist a post in “The American Thinker” which listed 12 “headlines you never would have seen just a few short years ago,” because 10 of 12 had appeared on my birthday, December 1. That explains why my favorite recent Great Stupid headline didn’t make the list, “Shark Week Lacks Diversity, Overrepresents Men Named Mike, Scientists Say,” which sparked two Ethics Alarms posts yesterday, here and here. Eric Utter writes that taken together, the list “looks like a harbinger of chaos and disaster.” I won’t argue with that, especially since I see worse headlines than these every day and have time and gorge to write about only some of them. Here are nine of the twelve:

Continue reading

Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 12/6/2022: Christmas Is Coming, With Ethics Falling Flat…

Who IS that guy? He’s flat! I sure hope there really aren’t four of him. This particular traditional carol has been largely skipped over on YouTube, limiting choices severely.

1. ” I didn’t say what I said!” Donald Trump’s idiotic and alarming outburst after the Twitter censorship revelations has attracted the horrified reaction anyone could have predicted (but him, apparently) the second the words tumbled from his brain onto Truth Social. Now he’s denying that he suggested terminating the Constitution, hearkening back to such episodes as his claiming he opposed the invasion of Iraq. “The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES,” Trump wrote yesterday on his social media platform. Sure. By what rules of English does “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” mean that the speaker isn’t proposing exactly that? Yes, yes, we all know that Trump just says stuff and that his version of language is approximate and fleeting in meaning. Lord knows I’ve written that enough times. But when your political adversaries are winning elections by saying that you want to be a dictator, using that diversion to hide their own totalitarian machinations, that statement is still unforgivable.

Buried in his original statement is Trump’s calling the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story a “fraud.” Whatever it was, it wasn’t fraud. This is just a word Trump uses. Meanwhile, Politico, in the article linked above, dutifully parrots the mainstream media line that Trump is “falsely asserting that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election.” Politico doesn’t know Trump’s fraud allegations are false; it’s unknowable. Then it says, again as scripted by the Axis, “Trump, who was impeached twice and regularly denies his loss in the last presidential election, perpetuated the untrue claim in both Truth Social posts that 2020 election was stolen.” What do his two partisan and illicit impeachments have to do with anything? And again: Politico doesn’t know that the election wasn’t stolen; indeed the laptop cover-up is strong evidence that it may have been.

Continue reading

Oh-Oh…The New Supreme Court Justice Made One Of The Worst Analogies I’ve Ever Heard

I’m going to give Justice Jackson the benefit of the doubt. Anyone, even a distinguished judge, can have a bad day and say something that just doesn’t come out right. Still, it must be said, her contribution to the many analogies and hypotheticals being tossed around in the Supreme Court during the oral argument of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the case where a web designer claims that forcing her to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple violates her First Amendment Rights, was jaw-droppingly bad. Frightening, even.

Justice Neil Gorsuch had correctly noted that the objection at issue was not based on the status of the same-sex couple, but instead, the message that the business owner did not want to send. The question isn’t the “who” Gorsuch said, but the “what.” Exactly. And that’s why CNN’s headline on the case, “Supreme Court conservatives seem to side with website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples” is false and misleading. Lorie Smith has been very clear that she will work for anyone; she just won’t make same-sex wedding websites. It’s not “Who,” but “What.”

Now consider Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s rejoinder. Pay attention, please:

Continue reading

Sunday Morning Ethics Sing-Out, 12/4/2022: Search Engines, Harvey’s Junk, Another Confused Actor, And More

In my view, this is the gold standard of Christmas carols. Nobody know for certain who write the soaring melody. It might have been Handel.

***

I apologize for the various WordPress glitches of late. They are fooling around with the software again. Now, on every draft post, I have to put up with idiotic suggestions from the platform on what to write about. Just now, it was, “Are you more of a night or morning person?” Get off my screen, you meddling fools! I don’t need your pedestrian input to find inspirations for an ethics blog’s content.

***

The Twitter censorship story reminded me again of how biased, cowardly and dead wrong the left-ish commenters and silent readers here were over the past few years to flee Ethics Alarms because it accurately, fairly and objectively figured out how unjustified and sinister their favorite party’s treatment of  President Trump, how contrived and rigged the Russian collusion investigation was, how destructive the two partisan impeachments were, how dangerous the mainstream media’s transformation into a propaganda weapon had become, and how ethically rotten their favorite party was. Ethics Alarms was right, they were wrong, and if even one of the self-exiled who pulled themselves up to their full height, stuck their defiant chins in the air, and accused me of “drinking the Kool-Aid” had an atom of courage or integrity, they would apologize and ask to have their commenting privileges restored. Instead, they remain enablers of the attacks on individual rights and democratic institutions by their apathy, acquiescence, and denial. People are always accusing me of being “upset” about the ethics issues we cover here. I almost never am. This, however, pisses me off.

1. Hopeless, but admirable.…Since Google has traveled from “Don’t Be Evil” to Big Tech ethics villainy, a new search engine has been launched, Freespoke, as a non-totalitarianism-enabling alternative.  The problem with all of these competitors, like DuckDuckGo, is that they just aren’t as reliable. Still, I’ll give this one a chance. Here’s a good sign: a search for”ethics blog” turned up Ethics Alarms on the first page, 7th in line. On Google, the same search placed Ethics Alarms on the sixth page, after many sites that receive far less traffic and several that are functionally dead, like the Legal Ethics Forum, which once was one of my favorite resources. Its last post was last January, yet its two pages ahead of  EA. Gee, I wonder why that would be? Looks like I can’t blame all of the reduced traffic here on pusillanimous wokesters… Continue reading

Further Updates And Observations On The Musk-Taibbi Twitter Revelations [Updated Further!]

This is going to be only one post when it ought to be about five. I’m restraining myself; here is another example of a story that has me in a self-flagellating mood because I have so mismanaged my life, time, opportunities and talents that I am reduced to fulminating futilely on an obscure blog that does nothing to effect any substantive change, at a period in our culture’s journey when ignorance and malevolence threaten the nation’s essence.  Meanwhile, the likes of Alyssa Milano, Milo Yiannopoulos, and social media “influencers ” have millions of followers who heed their “wisdom.” Continue reading

Musk Reveals What Caused Twitter To Bury The Hunter Biden Laptop Story, And Trump’s Claim That The 2020 Election Was “Stolen” Is No Longer “Baseless” [Updated!]

So far, not surprisingly, the mainstream media isn’t covering the story encompassed by Musk’s internal records about how Twitter helped bury the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election. It is continuing to concentrate on Kanye West’s Nazi affection and his banning by Musk as its Twitter story of the day. This reflects poorly on Trump, you see. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!

Today Musk sent the relevant Twitter records to ex-Rolling Stone substack journalist Matt Taibbi, who tweeted lengthy Twitter-burst about what they show. I hate reading those 10 part Tweet-streams, so here is what they say put together:

“Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: ‘More to review from the Biden team.’ The reply would come back: ‘Handled.'”

As in this attachment, from Musk’s documentation:

Taibbi continued,

“Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However… This system wasn’t balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right. The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you’re about to read. However, it’s also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives…there’s no evidence – that I’ve seen” that the federal government had a role in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop …the decision was made at the highest levels of the company, but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, with former head of legal, policy and trust Vijaya Gadde [That’s her above] playing a key role. …Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be “unsafe.” They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography. White House spokeswoman Kaleigh McEnany was locked out of her account for tweeting about the story, prompting a furious letter from Trump campaign staffer Mike Hahn, who seethed: “At least pretend to care for the next 20 days.” This led public policy executive Caroline Strom to send out a polite WTF query. Several employees noted that there was tension between the comms/policy teams, who had little/less control over moderation, and the safety/trust teams: Strom’s note returned the answer that the laptop story had been removed for violation of the company’s “hacked materials” policy. 

They just freelanced it,’ is how one former employee characterized the decision. ‘Hacking’ was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it.”

Continue reading

A Christmas Music Ethics Spectacular! [First Stanza]

Ethics Alarms barely touched on the wide and deep topic of Christmas music last year, relegating it to a “warm-up” intro and a re-post from 2015, so in the interests of tradition as much as anything—and the holiday season is all about tradition, after all—Here comes an ethics post, here comes an ethics post, right down Ethics Post Lane!

1. Unethical Lyrics

A. There are several sub-categories here. One which only fits the single Christmas song  I just referenced, “Here Comes Santa Claus,” which is a lyric that violates the unwritten but important Christmas Music Separation Clause, which holds that a song can be about the religious holiday or it can be about Santa Clause and the secular holiday, but mixing the two is forbidden. Early in the song, one that Gene Autry wrote and sang, children are told to say their prayers, suggesting that if they don’t, Santa will not drop by, and then the song ends:

He’s a miracle come to all if we just follow the lightSo let’s give thanks to the Lord above, ’cause Santa Claus comes tonight!

I bet you thought I was going to complain about “Santa Claus Lane,” didn’t you?

B. Insulting lyrics. The ethical value being trashed in these songs is respect. Any time a Christmas song lyric makes the listener think, “Wait a minute, does the singer think I’m an idiot?” the lyricist has crossed a line. In this ugly category:

  • “Little Saint Nick,” a Beach Boys effort by Brian Wilson, contains the lyric, “Christmas comes this time each year.” This annoyed me the first time I heard it, and has ever since. Yeah, Christmas comes at Christmastime. When else was it going to come? Mike Love actually sued to be given joint credit for this song.
  • “Holly Jolly Christmas,” the Burl Ives ditty by Johnny Marks, contains another statement of the obvious:

Ho ho the mistletoeHung where you can see Continue reading

Worst of Ethics Award 2022: Most Unethical Lawn Sign Or Car Sticker. And You Thought “Baby On Board” Was Bad…

I’ve been steaming about this one for a while.

That’s not exactly the sign I saw stuck on the rear window of an automobile with Virginia tags that was in front of me for about 20 miles last month; the one I had to look at had the heart in place of “love.” I also couldn’t find anywhere online that sells such a thing, which is encouraging.

I found myself wondering what kind of person would display that message. It is virtue-signaling of the worst variety, simultaneously obnoxious, arrogant, stupid and self-defeating. It is self-defeating because there is nothing virtuous about someone who would proclaim “I love an autistic child.” What does this jerk want, applause? Pity? “Awwwwwww!”? Continue reading