Connect with us

National Security

‘Tech oligarchs’ reportedly funded study that claims conservative censorship is ‘a falsehood’

Published

on

mike davis

Founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project Mike Davis joined Tucker Carlson on the “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Tuesday to discuss big tech’s campaign to censor conservative voices.

New York University researchers published a study Monday claiming there is no conservative censorship.

The study titled, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives” states that claims of anti-conservative bias are “a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.”

“No trustworthy large scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests,” the study continues.

Carlson labelled the study “farcical” and “utterly fraudulent.”

Davis explained that this study, funded by a “tech oligarch,” was done to protect big tech corporations.

“You’re dealing with these big tech corporations trying to protect their interests,” Davis said. “We have CraigsList founder, a billionaire, funding this study and then the study relies upon Facebook, Google and Twitter employees to find out whether there’s conservative censorship and the people they’re not asking about conservative censorship are conservatives.”

“And so of course, they didn’t find any censorship just like the tobacco industry didn’t find any problems with tobacco in kids.”

Davis noted that most institutions or “think tanks” in Washington D.C. are funded by these tech oligarchs.

“This is not just a problem with Democrats in Washington D.C. There are many Republicans in D.C., who are bought off by big tech, by Google, by Amazon, by Facebook, by Apple, by Twitter,” Davis explained. “This is a bipartisan problem in D.C. and the swamp and I think conservatives across America need to put pressure on their Republican members in Congress to go on the side of everyday Americans instead of big tech oligarchs.”

“I think big tech has a hold of both parties in Washington D.C.”

Carlson applauded Davis for continuing his fight against big tech, “you are fighting a lonely battle, but a worthy one.”

Follow Annaliese Levy on Twitter @AnnalieseLevy

You may like

Continue Reading

Immigration

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Biden Administration has authority to reverse Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy

Published

on

GettyImages 1082131004

The Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration In a 5-4 decision in Biden v. Texas. The Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration has the authority to reverse the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. Under the Trump era policy, migrants seeking entry into the United States had to “remain in Mexico” as they waited for their hearings.

Fox News reports “The Trump administration put the policy in place so that migrants would not be released into the U.S. The Biden administration had tried to repeal the policy but was previously blocked by a lower court. At issue was whether the Department of Homeland Security’s suspension and subsequent termination of the policy violated a federal law that requires that migrants be detained or, if they arrived from a contiguous country, sent back.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion,  joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. The majority held that the Biden administration has not violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that memoranda issued by DHS in October repealing the policy represented “final agency action.”

“[T]he Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Court’s opinion. The Court has sent the case back to district court, with instructions to “consider in the first instance whether the October 29 Memoranda comply with section 706 of the APA.”

Fox News writes:

The statute Roberts cited, 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, says that someone applying for admission “shall be detained for a proceeding” unless they are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” and also says if they are from a contiguous territory like Mexico, “the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory” as they await a hearing. Texas and Missouri had pointed to this language in arguing that the Remain in Mexico policy was necessary to adhere to this law. Without the ability to detain everyone, the states argued in their lawsuit, sending them back when possible is necessary. 

National Review reports on the case:

Since coming into office, President Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has twice sought to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols, which require certain non-citizens who arrive at the Southern border to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases are processed. Texas and Missouri both challenged that federal policy reversal, arguing that it was unlawful under both federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act.

You may like

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending Now

Advertisement

Trending

Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC