All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 31, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
11:24
Dishonest media SMEAR GAB.com founder with false "hate speech" accusations
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Something changed.
Something snapped.
It's become obvious to me in the aftermath of this synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh and the relentless media assault on Gab.com and its founder, Andrew Torba, who's now being compared to the shooter himself,
which is so insane and so irresponsible and dishonest on the part of the press, but It's becoming obvious to me that the internet ecosystem, which I'll describe here in a second, absolutely will not allow truly free speech to exist.
And by truly free speech, I mean a gab.com approach, which is that basically anything goes, any speech.
And Andrew Torbaugh He has explained numerous times that in his opinion he recognizes that there is, quote, bad speech or evil intent speech on Gab, but he says that the answer to bad speech is more speech.
And philosophically I agree with him on that point, that for every ignorant racist person out there who wants to speak, there should be, you know, you would hope, Hundreds or thousands of other more enlightened, educated individuals who would drown out that voice and call for civility and call for human dignity.
And so you could argue the answer to bad speech is more speech.
And yet, at the same time, it's now obvious that the deep state operatives who are running all these campaigns to try to silence the voices that they don't control.
Remember, this is all about control from the point of view of the globalists.
What they're doing is as they set up these false flag shootings they make sure that the shooters or the bombers or whoever have Online accounts at Gab or the other organizations that they're trying to destroy, such as now brighteon.com, which is my website, the video site alternative to YouTube.
Thus, when the violence takes place and people are shot or people are bombed or whatever the attack happens to be, Then a memo goes out to the media and the media says, well, oh my god, this person had an account on Gab.
Gab is evil.
You know, down with Gab.
Well, the guy also had an account on Facebook, so why is it the media saying Facebook should be banned?
Right?
You don't see that anywhere.
People have accounts on Twitter.
People have electrical service accounts with their local electricity companies.
How come the electric companies aren't told to Cut off the electricity of this bad person.
Or cut off the heat.
You know, cut off telephone service.
Or maybe we should just ban the internet because bad people use the internet, so obviously the internet must be banned by their logic.
But in response to all of this media barrage attacking Gab...
These internet gatekeepers such as GoDaddy, they denounced Gab and they essentially have deplatformed Gab.
The Node.js code hosting company gave them like 12 hours notice or something.
Maybe it was 24 hours notice.
I don't recall the details.
They said, get off our platform.
At the same time, GoDaddy said, we're not going to be your domain registrar anymore.
You've got 12 hours to move your domain registrar.
All of this insane stuff being deplatformed everywhere.
And as a result, Gab is literally offline.
And the simple practical truth of the matter is that every online website system, whether it's Gab or Brighteon or other alternatives, BitChute, for example, video sites, they all depend on an ecosystem.
An internet infrastructure that has to function in order for that site to remain online.
And brighteon.com is the same.
We rely on third-party components and hosting services and transcoding services for videos and all these other things.
And of course the domain name system and the domain registrars.
Even if you build your own server farm and have all your own code and all your own system, you still have, you depend on a fiber optic line.
What if the fiber optics company says, oh, we're going to cut you off because we don't like what you're saying?
That could happen.
Or what if the domain name system, DNS, Just decides that, hey, from a DNS level, they're going to start banning speech that they don't like.
They just start banning domains.
So they don't resolve.
So people type in brighteon.com and it goes nowhere.
Because that can happen as well.
And that's what these gatekeepers, that's the power they have.
And it's become obvious to me now that truly free speech cannot survive this onslaught.
Of attacks and deplatforming and techno gatekeepers that are blacklisting your website and your engine, your components, your domain name, all these other things.
And it's a very shocking realization because up until now, the internet has been a place where, you know, if people wanted to go to your website, they type in your domain name and they find it.
And if people don't want to go to your website, nobody's forcing them to.
So it's end-user's choice.
But now, all of a sudden, it increasingly appears like these tech giants are going to decide for themselves, well, which sites are allowed to even exist versus which sites are going to be deplatformed.
So then the question becomes, for those of us who are running platforms like brighteon.com, how do we survive?
Seriously, how do we survive this ecosystem of suppression of speech?
Because, I mean, you think about it.
You think about what's on brighteon.com, and there are a lot of really great videos and home gardening videos and good political analysis and news videos.
And then there are some videos, and some of them we've already flagged, that are like, wow, I really wish this wasn't here.
But it's that person's free speech.
I don't agree with it.
I just, it sucks that this is on this platform.
It's not illegal, so we don't have a justification to ban it for violating laws, but it's some very dark, negative speech.
That's out there.
There's some of that even on brightdeon.com, although again, we're flagging it.
We're trying to flag all that stuff.
And we're going to have an enhanced flagging system soon, too, that will present additional on-page warnings, by the way.
But how do we survive when somebody who wants to take us offline can just say, oh, well, they're like a nest for hate speech.
Look at this video.
They can pick three or four videos that are particularly bad, but not representative of the overall tone of the site.
And they can say, well, look, somebody on there said this.
But, of course, they never apply that logic to Twitter.
Because there's all kinds of crazy filth and racism and Jew bashing and all kinds of things on Twitter, but they never say that that's Twitter, that Twitter endorses that, or that Twitter is a safe haven for hate speech, even though probably it is.
They never say that about Facebook.
For some reason, the tech giants that are run by leftists are never held to the same Standard of accountability as the independent websites.
So they'll blame the independent websites and say, well, you are allowing these bad actors to speak.
And then they'll demonize you and they'll lie about you.
They've done this to Andrew Torba.
They've done this to Gab.
They've done this to Alex Jones.
And it's just a blueprint now that they use for everybody that they want to de-platform.
How do we, as people who really want the world to heal, We want to uplift humanity.
We want to spread knowledge and wisdom.
How do we survive?
And I don't know the answer to that question yet.
That's why I'm asking you, and I put out an announcement that's asking for your suggestions.
We welcome your video suggestions and support ticket suggestions.
How do we survive and protect the speech of those voices that deserve to be heard?
While also not allowing our platform to be exploited by those who have intent to do harm.
How do we find that balance?
And it almost seems like an impossible task.
I don't know the answer.
I've already seen some suggestions, by the way, that were kind of interesting.
One suggestion was allow the current users to vote on who to ban.
Okay, so you end up with kind of like a clique power structure of power users who can de-platform anybody that they don't like.
That seems like a bad way to go about this.
It seems like that's ripe for abuse.
Another suggestion from a person was to just make people pay for using the website.
Charge people subscription fees.
Well, I don't know how that Solves the problem.
Just because people are paying doesn't necessarily mean that bad actors can't also pay in some way and then still exploit the website to spread a message that might cause harm.
So I don't think that that solves it.
Another suggestion was that, well, we decide.
We decide, we being the founders, we decide who to ban and who to allow.
Well, how do we know?
I mean, who gave us the God power to decide what's correct speech and what isn't correct speech?
We have our own obvious biases.
I mean, every human being does.
How do we know we're always going to get it right?
And what are our internal guidelines, even if we were to adopt such a position?
How do we do that?
I don't...
You know, it's a complex...
It's a very complex issue.
Another suggestion was require people to prove their identity, like require them to email over a copy of their driver's license or something.
Hey, I don't want to be invading everybody's privacy for this.
We're trying to get away from that.
We want...
Whistleblowers to have anonymity, for example.
So, I don't know the answer to this, but we welcome your suggestions.
We want to try to survive and stay alive and support free speech.
So, we welcome your suggestions in all of this.
Thanks for listening.
Mike Adams here for brighteon.com.
Take care.
Learn more at healthrangerreport.com.
thank you for watching If you want to support our mission, visit us at healthrangersstore.com for the world's largest selection of lab-verified superfood and nutritional products for healthy living.
▲
Export Selection