Oct. 14, 2020

Biden News Article gets censored and the UNHRC goes Red

Biden News Article gets censored and the UNHRC goes Red

I talk about the Social Media censorship of the New York Post article that talks about Joe and Hunter Biden. I also express concerns that the United Nations Human Rights Council accepted China, Russia and Cuba for seats.


Support the show (https://paypal.me/Coffeebreathconvo)

Coffee Breath Conversations:

Alright folks, welcome back to another episode of Coffee Breath Conversations. I'm your host, Russell Barton. And it's going to be another solo episode today, looking at a few news articles that are kind of floating around on the internet. So it looks like today, there was an article that was posted by the New York Post, saying that the possibility that Joe Biden when he was Vice President, helped out his son hunter Biden was some deal in Ukraine. Now, I don't know if it is true or not. I know, they said previously, that it was completely debunked, it was fake. Now they're trying to say that it's a deep fake, that the articles were doctored or fake, by some manner. I don't know if it's true or not. And frankly, I really don't care all that much. If it is true, well, then that's collusion with a government that's very, very close to the Russian border. And it showcases, nepotism, cronyism, but it's all stuff that we've known about for a long time anyway. So it's it's not really that much of a shock. If it's not true. Well, it's just another hit piece that's come out looking to defame close to the election, not uncommon for politicians and other news organizations to drop these last minute kind of bombshells on campaigns to sway voters. What I'm more interested is in the media cover up, that kind of happened because of it. So after the New York Post, published this article, onto Twitter, things started to kind of go a little haywire. First, Facebook refused to publish it. They were blocking links and deleting links to this article. until their fact checkers could check it out to verify if it was true or not. So again, social media company that's interfering with a traditional legacy media. Twitter started doing something similar, they started deleting tweets, Shadow banning. And to me, it's like the Streisand effect. The more you try to cover something up, the more you try to divert attention away from it inadvertently ends up attracting even more attention to it. And while I talk about this quite often, when you D platform people, especially people involved in conspiracies, all you're doing is you're is you're legitimizing their claims, hey, look, if I wasn't onto something, why would they be taking me down? whether it's true or not. So I've been following it throughout the day, people's content getting deleted, it looks like it's one sided, then people are trying to say that it was illegally obtained, which the hypocrisy is not lost on me. Trump's tax returns were illegally obtained. And they were published by the New York Times for the whole world to see. And when Trump's taxes went out on to Twitter, people were scanning through for the fine tooth comb looking for that final nail in the coffin for this four year presidency. And of course, it turned out to be really a big, nothing burger again. Everyone's complaining he didn't pay that much in taxes. Well, just utilizing loopholes that all the big businesses use to avoid paying money. It really can't come as much of a shock to people can it are people really been living under a rock for that long. I mean, we've had the Panama Papers, we've had all sorts of different things. Throughout the years, I've shown money laundering and people using any type of loophole to pay as little back to the government as they can. I mean, libertarian should be in awe of the president because of how little taxes he's paid back to the government, but not getting derailed. Too much Twitter and Facebook, they have no problem publishing the President's taxes, which could easily have been doctored themselves. It could have been a deep fake, who knows. No censorship there. New York Post puts out this article in regards to hunter Biden, it's just censor, censor, censor, for Facebook and for law, these media companies. It just goes to show that they really do control what you see. And it's easy to say, well, they're a private organization. They can choose to publish what they want. And they can choose to delete what they want. If you don't like it, go start your own social media company. I've heard that a million times before. A few years ago, I might have agreed. But now social media has become so intertwined in our regular daily life, that it's almost impossible to simply say Just ignore it or delete your account or go start your own social media company or any of those nonsense sort of excuses because people go to these sites for their news, people are not turning to legacy media. They're not cracking open a newspaper as often. And not listening to the radio as often. Although podcasting has really caught on as an alternative to that. They're going on to Facebook, they're going on Twitter, they're going on Instagram. And they're getting this news, whether it's real, whether it's doctor, whether it's been edited or not. And that's how they're consuming their news. They feel more involved because they get to comment on it, they can share it, they can share it on their timeline, and add their own little caveat to it. For better or for worse, social media is a form of media now. And I don't want to go too as far to say it's a public utility, but it certainly has the markings of a public utility. Does that mean I think it should be regulated more? I'm out to lunch on that one. I, I don't have enough of a structured opinion to say if we should regulate it more deregulate it. Would I do think, though, is that it's cornered market. I do think that there's been some other kind of startups I've tried to enter into the social media market, and they haven't done a very good job of it. I can think of ones like parlour alternative to Twitter, you have minds, there's been a few other ones have kind of gotten a bit of a following, but they just don't have the interface. And they just don't have the ease of access and ability. That your Facebook, your Twitter, your Instagram, your snapchat do and even Tech Talk. So it'll be interesting to see how this kind of evolves. It looks like kind of the cats out of the bag on this. Now, it's kind of getting hard to say that there is no issues with regulation on social media by these platforms. It's kind of become almost obvious. major figures have had their stuff deleted or hidden by Twitter, declared to be in violation of Twitter's rules. So to simply say that what's all a fake or that's not happening? It's just a conspiracy. That's threshold is are already been crossed. And the article today really, really showcase that. whether it's true or not, I think it's a bit of a nothing burger, in that this has been going on. Since people have held public office nepotism, cronyism, it's hard to say that it wouldn't exceed all the way to the highest levels. And if it does, if people think it isn't happening right now, with the current administration, I mean, that's you can hold that belief. Not that I think it's right, but it's kind of taken almost as a perk, of being in public office. Interesting to note, I haven't really seen any mention of it on the Canadian news networks. And a lot of other news networks seem to have kind of got a press blackout on this. Again, I'm not focusing on the story. I'm focusing on the social media platform, and the media overall. And I'm not seeing too many stories being done on it. Again, we're in Canada, I don't anticipate that every piece of news that's done in United States, we need to cover in Canada as well. We have our own News Network, we have our own news around the country. But our own public broadcaster, has done a countless number of hit piece articles against the evil orange man in the White House. And again, I'm not taking sides. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here, where this article is not really picked up any traction in Canadian media. But I can go on to our public broadcasters page right now. Let's see I'm scrolling. There from page, three articles talking about the evil orange man or relating to something to do with bad republicans in the White House in the United States. There's one about why someone's voting. There's one of the implications. Our news agencies are supposed to strive for unbiased coverage of interesting things that are affecting people around the world. And I'm okay if they do opinion pieces. opinion is being misconstrued as fact, feelings are being misconstrued as facts. Really, a lot of these articles. They're not traditional news articles. They're ads. They're trying to sell you something, sell you a service, they're trying to sell you some non profit charity, that's doing something in the community. It's it's an expose a but it's also an ad and it's meant to do more than just inform. It's meant to persuade and sway. Do I think that news agencies are ever going to be 100% looking at All sides. No, I don't anticipate that, that this time the curtain got pulled back a little bit too much. And people were kind of left holding the bag saying, Hey, what's going on with this, and the Streisand effect is just taken off. And of course now this article has gotten even more traction than I think it would have gotten. If they hadn't gone on a whole banning and, and silencing frenzy on social media. Other article that I saw today, United Nations Human Rights Council voted in three new members. And those members are China, Russia, and Cuba, and the Saudis are out how Canada can continue to support the United Nations Human Rights Council, when its membership is comprised of some of the worst human rights violators in modern history is beyond me. I mean, I, the United States pulled out a few years ago, some other countries know they voiced their concerns, a lot of groups have voiced their concerns the UN watch his voice, their concerns, mean the United Nations Human Rights campaigns that they do, I believe a lot of them are coming from a good place, and that they're talking about, especially in other countries where there's atrocities that are being committed against people based on their gender based on sexual orientation. It happens, religion, all sorts of different things. But for China to be on the United Nations Human Rights Council, when they are suspected of committing one of the worst modern genocides, in modern times against Muslims in China is insulting. I follow maajid Nawaz, on Twitter, and Facebook. And he's been pointing this out for months. And so of other people. And for whatever reason, it's not front and center, the whole point of all these different organizations that are supposed to be keeping the peace overall, is to prevent things like this from happening again. So the whole reason why the UN United Nations was formed after world war two was to monitor so that these types of human rights atrocities don't occur again. But yet again, it's happened again and again and again. And every single time we wait until it reaches a certain level, and then we say, Hey, what's going on here, and suddenly, it's something that needs to be investigated and looked into. I mean, they want to talk about human rights. You can watch videos in Russia, of people trying to celebrate pride in Russia and getting beaten up by the police. I mean, I can't even begin to quantify some of the modern genocidal things that have happened in China against their own people against Muslims. And the worst part of it all, is what is one of the things that all three of these countries have in common. They're all in some way, shape, or form, involved in communism. For whatever reason, we're we've reached a point in our modern society where capitalism is bad. It's created all the modern ills and horrors of the world. And somehow we're going to fix it with communism. And I don't know how this has become such a mainstream sort of opinion of how we're going to fix the ills in our system, and not wearing any blinders that there are ills and that capitalism will not result in 100% equity for everyone. I make no qualms. I'm not saying it's a perfect system. But really, we're going to replace it with communism in these countries that are communist leaning, getting more and more power and international organizations. I just don't think that there's enough being said about it. China wasn't happy about some of the remarks that Canada had made. I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that China is upset that we made bad comments about them. All right, that's kind of the two major news things that kind of stuck out for me today. There's there's some other stuff out there that I've kind of following, but it's not getting the traction that these stories are getting right now. That's all I got for you today, folks. And I wish everyone to Stay safe, and we'll see you next time.