The documentary “Plandemic” by Mikki Willis has raised the ante on internet censorship to a whole new level. Across the board, the film has been banned from social media platforms and hidden by Google. If you do an online search for it, all you find are dozens of pages with articles calling it a hoax, a fraud or the dreaded old “conspiracy theory.”
The film features Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist1 whose research showed that many vaccines are contaminated with gammaretroviruses, thanks to the fact that they use viruses grown in contaminated animal cell lines.
A May 27, 2020, article2 in The Jewish Voice, which carries the telling headline, “Washington Post Journalist Advocates Censorship of Controversial Dr. Judy Mikovits Film, as Stunning Censorship Grips World,” notes:
“When The Jewish Voice posted the 20 minute preview of Dr. Judy Mikovitz’ documentary ‘Plandemic’ our website literally crashed for 24 hours straight due to huge traffic … The movie is about vaccines and pandemics and her views on Bill Gates and others. Is the 20-minute preview controversial, absolutely — is this material dangerous? Absolutely not.
It’s frightening enough that YouTube and just about every other social media platform, insisted on censoring a 20-minute preview of an unreleased documentary, but we are at a point where actual journalists are advocating for censorship. Journalists basically live by the values of the First Amendment …
In an article reporting on the take-down of the video, The Washington Post’s Silicon Valley Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin complained that after the coronavirus documentary Plandemic was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access “banned footage” from the documentary via Google Drive …
This gets even more incredible. The ‘journalist’ then brags that The Washington Post contacted Google and Google Drive took down a file featuring the trailer for the ‘Plandemic’ documentary.
In other words, the Washington Post has a writer working for them that is so vehemently anti-free speech, she contacted Google and now reports are circulating that people’s personal copies of the video are vanishing from their Google Drives! …
We are entering a terrifying new era, a world where censorship is common and the guardians of free speech — journalists, are standing up for… censorship!”
Google Drive Removes Private Content
Indeed, it appears Google Drive has removed downloaded copies of the film from users’ personal files at the request of The Washington Post.3 According to Reclaim the Net, Google Drive has also been caught blocking access to a hydroxychloroquine study:4
“For many Google Drive users, the service is their only file storage solution and they use it to save copies of videos and posts that have been deleted or censored on other platforms.
If this precedent continues, it could mean these users have their only copy of content that has been scrubbed from social media platforms taken down because they shared a link to those files with other people.
According to Google Drive’s policies, distributing what Google deems to be ‘misleading content related to civic and democratic processes,’ ‘misleading content related to harmful health practices,’ ‘manipulated media’ is prohibited with possible exceptions when the content is used in an ‘educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context.’”
The question is, who decides what content is misleading or what health practices are harmful? Unequivocal scientific consensus is hard to find, no matter what we’re talking about. As long as we have scientists looking into things, the science on any given topic will never be fully settled.
Hence, avoiding conflicting viewpoints and differing scientific findings will be virtually impossible. If we shut down viewpoints (especially by scientists) that veer from the status quo of the day, science will simply cease to exist.
It will become pointless, if it isn’t already. We’ll have to settle for the personal opinions of our leaders, be they elected or unelected, like Bill Gates. It’s hard to fathom that in this 21st century, we’re on a fast-track into a new intellectual Dark Age.
Epidemiologist Censored for Countering Lockdown Narrative
Mikovits is by no means the only voice being censored these days. Another example is that of Knut Wittkowski, Ph.D., DSc, an epidemiologist and former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, of all places.
His video, in which he challenges the wisdom of lockdown orders, was removed by YouTube for “violating community standards” after garnering nearly 1.5 million views.
When asked why he thought “there is so much pushback” to his line of reasoning, he replied,5 “Because I think so many people have invested so much of their ego and so they have a problem acknowledging that maybe it was a little bit too much.” A YouTube spokesperson defended the company’s actions, saying:6
“We quickly remove flagged content that violates our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of global or local health authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance. We are committed to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.”
YouTube Censors on Behalf of the WHO
Indeed, YouTube’s CEO has gone on record saying they will censor anyone speaking against the World Health Organization. This despite the fact that WHO has been severely criticized for its handling of other pandemics, including the 2009 swine flu pandemic.7
In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a ‘waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.’”8
Specifically, PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making.9 There can be little doubt we’re seeing the same thing happening now, as we’re all told we cannot go back to normal life until or unless we get a vaccine and inoculate the whole world.
There’s no guarantee that WHO is making correct, unbiased decisions. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction, given the power Bill Gates wields over the organization.
This is precisely why one must not silence experts who challenge the narrative and point out flaws in any given plan. This is particularly true right now, as the current situation is unprecedented and health authorities are making up guidance as they go.
Even the CDC and WHO are issuing conflicting recommendations on certain aspects of the pandemic response, such as whether people should10 or should not11 wear a mask.
YouTube Deletes Criticism of Chinese Communist Party
YouTube’s censorship becomes even more questionable when you consider it was caught automatically deleting comments insulting the Chinese Communist Party. Only in this case, YouTube claims the censorship was due to “an error in our enforcement systems.”12 No explanation was given as to how such an error might have arisen.
However, as reported by The Verge:13
“… if the deletions are the result of a simple mistake, then it’s one that’s gone unnoticed for six months. The Verge found evidence that comments were being deleted as early as October 2019, when the issue was raised on YouTube’s official help pages and multiple users confirmed that they had experienced the same problem.
Comments left under videos or in live streams that contain the words “共匪” (‘communist bandit’) or “五毛” (‘50-cent party’) are automatically deleted in around 15 seconds, though their English language translations and Romanized Pinyin equivalents are not.
The term ‘共匪’ is an insult that dates back to China’s Nationalist government, while ‘五毛,’ (or ‘wu mao’) is a derogatory slang term for internet users paid to direct online discussion away from criticism of the CCP. The name comes from claims that such commenters are paid 50 Chinese cents per post.”
This certainly would not be the first time YouTube has catered to the Chinese government’s desire for censorship. They even created a prototype search engine for China, known as Project Dragonfly, that would comply with Chinese state censorship. Criticism from American politicians and its own employees led to YouTube scrubbing the project.14
Twitter Falsely Labels All Mercola Links as Unsafe
As discussed in “Shocking Proof How Google Censors Health News,” mid-2019, Google started going to great lengths burying Mercola.com in its search results. Since then, I’ve erected a firewall that prevents Google bots from indexing my pages altogether. That doesn’t mean Big Tech and their allies have washed their hands of me.
Twitter now falsely labels any and all Mercola article links as unsafe and malicious, warning potential readers my site might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer — a tactic that decreases views by about 95%. This is absolutely false. On the contrary, my site is now set up to protect all readers from Google’s intrusive data mining.
All of these examples are part of Silicon Valley’s surveillance capitalism apparatus. It’s all about controlling entire populations and shaping public opinion to benefit certain companies, industries and/or political parties. And it’s shockingly effective. Google’s search algorithms alone have the power to shift 15 million votes leading up to the 2020 presidential election, according to calculations — all without leaving a paper trail.
You can learn more about this in “Google — A Dictator Unlike Anything the World Has Ever Known,” in which I interview Robert Epstein, Ph.D., a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped expose Google’s manipulative and deceptive practices.
White House Seeks to Defend Free Speech
May 28, 2020, just two days after Twitter added a fact-check to one of President Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballots being a vehicle for election fraud, calling the post “potentially misleading,” the President signed an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship15 requiring the Federal Communications Commission to clarify regulations under Section 23016 of the Communications Decency Act.
Within 60 days, the Secretary of Commerce, “in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),” are required to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC, and the FCC is asked to act “expeditiously” in presenting its regulations.
According to Trump, the executive order is intended to “defend free speech from one of the gravest dangers it has faced in American history.” He added:17
“A small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States. They’ve had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences …
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.
This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.”
Social Media Giants May Lose Section 230 Protection
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what, so far, has allowed social media platforms to pick and choose what they allow on their site while still being afforded legal protections.
In simple terms, if you’re an internet service provider, you’re not liable for what users are posting on your platform, but you still have the right to block harmful content (such as pornography) provided it’s done in good faith. If you’re a publisher, on the other hand, you can be held legally responsible for the content you post, and therefore have free reign over the viewpoints you will or will not allow.
Social media giants like Twitter and Facebook have long asserted that they are internet service providers, and therefore not liable for content. Yet they systematically censor only certain points of view, which is the complete opposite of what Section 230 sought to achieve. As noted in the executive order:18
“Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a ‘publisher’ of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.
As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability ‘protection’ to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in ‘’Good Samaritan’ blocking’ of harmful content.
In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.
The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a ‘forum for a true diversity of political discourse’ … The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from ‘civil liability’ and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable ‘on account of’ its decision in ‘good faith’ to restrict access to content that it considers to be ‘obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.’
It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in ‘good faith’ to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.
It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.”
We’ll have to patiently wait to see what the FCC comes up with over the next few months, but it seems clear Section 230 is now doing far more harm than good. Far from protecting free speech, it’s being used as a liability shield for Big Tech monopolies seeking to establish some sort of dictatorship where only one point of view is allowed to exist, and all others are mercilessly suppressed or erased altogether.
We simply cannot achieve good health, let alone democracy, without uncensored free speech and the right and ability to access different points of view equally.