Book burning.

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Unsubscribe The threat to free speech and civil liberties is growing. We are funded only by readers. If our work on censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of civil liberties is important to you, please consider becoming a supporter here. Thank you. EVEN PHYSICAL BOOKS ARE CENSORED eBay bans listings of some used Dr. Seuss books eBay is facing backlash after removing listings of used copies of the six Dr. Seuss children books that will no longer be published because they are considered “insensitive.” Two days ago, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the company responsible for reprinting his books, announced that it would stop reprinting six books because they contain racial stereotypes. The six books are: The Cat’s Quizzer, If I Ran a Zoo, McElligot’s Zoo, Scrambled Eggs Super!, And to Think I Saw It on Mulberry Street, and On Beyond Zebra. Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ announcement was met with criticism, with people calling it another example of cancel culture. Realizing that the six books would soon become rare, people who own the books started listing them for sale on eBay at exorbitant prices. The price of a Copy of “If I Ran the Zoo” went as high as $510 after 54 bids. However, on Thursday, eBay began removing listings of the books. An email to sellers claimed that the listings were removed for violating the online store’s “Offensive material policy.” eBay’s move was met with heavy criticism on social media. The online store is being accused of censorship, tech book burning, and virtue signaling. “You can’t make this stuff up. @eBay is blocking my listings of @DrSeuss’s “The Cat’s Quizzer” & citing it as offensive material. Yet anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan’s books are okay? #cancelcancelculture.” one angry Twitter user wrote. “You can buy Mein Kampf on eBay easy, but you can’t buy Dr. Seuss books,” another Twitter user wrote. “Virtue signaling tires me out dude.” People angry at the cancellation of the book also pointed out that President Biden did not mention Dr Seuss on Read Across America Day, which is held annually on the deceased author’s birthday. Former presidents, including Obama and Trump, recognized Theodor Seuss Giesel's contribution in the children’s books in their proclamations every year. “[Dr Seuss'] tales challenge dictators and discrimination. They call us to open our minds, to take responsibility for ourselves and our planet,” Obama said in his Read Across America Day proclamation in 2014. In Trump’s proclamation in 2018, he encouraged Americans to “always remember the still-vibrant words of Dr. Seuss: ‘You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself in any direction you choose.” The White House is yet to explain why Biden left out Dr. Seuss in his proclamation on Read Across America Day. You're reading Reclaim The Net. If you care about this stuff, please help out and become a supporter. COMING SOON New York Governor Cuomo announces vaccine passports While the highly controversial issue of introducing so-called Covid passports is being deliberated in many parts of the world, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo seems to have made up his mind: this US state has started to test one. The scheme, called the Excelsior Pass, is currently a pilot project that will be tested in Madison Square Garden and Barclays Center, Cuomo announced in a statement, adding that the first test was carried out during a basketball game at Barclays Center on February 28. The technology is developed with IBM, and involves what Cuomo says is a secure way to transfer confidential data that will prove the holder of this "coronavirus passport" has either been vaccinated or has a recent negative test. People will have to show a QR code that contains this information - either printed or stored on their phones. The goal is to eventually make this a requirement for entering areas where a large number of people gather, such as stadiums and theaters. These venues will be provided with an app to be used to scan the QR code. But reports note that Cuomo is currently embroiled in a political struggle to keep his emergency powers, which New York legislature is seeking to remove because of a series of scandals - including deliberate underreporting of Covid deaths in nursing homes as a ploy during the presidential election, and sexual harassment accusations - that have hit his administration recently. This means that Cuomo, if the state senate votes to strip him of his powers, may not be able to implement the coronavirus passport scheme. For now, this Democrat is talking it up as a way to speed up reopening of businesses that cater to larger gatherings of people, in order to let New Yorkers achieve their "new normal." IMB General Manager Steve LaFleche said that other states could follow New York's example and start using what he referred to as "a simple, secure, and voluntary" way of proving that a person has tested negatively, or has been vaccinated against Covid. In his statement, Cuomo promises "robust privacy protections" based on "an encrypted digital smartphone wallet or printed credential" - while those using the pass will not be sharing their personal medical data, he said. SUSPENDED FROM BROADCASTING YouTube suspends Right Side Broadcasting Network for covering President Trump speech YouTube has temporarily suspended the Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) for covering President Trump’s recent speech at CPAC. The network has recently had to self-censor in order to remain on YouTube after YouTube banned any conversations suggesting that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from President Trump - a concern held by 68% of Republicans. As the allegations are popular among conservatives, RSBN has had to censor its broadcasts multiple times, telling guests not to mention allegations of election discrepancies. This week, RSBN received a strike for carrying President Trump’s speech. Violating YouTube’s guidelines thrice results in permanent banning. RSBN was founded in 2015 by Joe Seales. The conservative media company rose in popularity for live streaming Trump’s rallies on YouTube. The over 3,000 videos on RSBN’s YouTube channel have millions of views. In a recent interview, RSBN’s Liz Willis had to cut off Mike Lindell (aka MyPillow Guy) when he tried to steer the conversation to coronavirus vaccines. “We have to be careful,” Willis said to Lindell. “I hate to do it, you know I love you, but due to YouTube’s guidelines, we will get our whole platform shut down if you talk about vaccines.” Following the Jan 6 riot in the US Capitol, YouTube updated its misinformation policies. “Due to the disturbing events that transpired yesterday, and given that the election results have now been certified, starting today *any* channels posting new videos with false claims in violation of our policies will now receive a strike,” YouTube announced on January 7. The Google-owned platform is also clamping down on COVID-19 dissent. Those policies put the Pro-Trump YouTube channel in a very awkward position, especially since Trump himself has promoted the idea of election discrepancies and coronavirus information that goes against the World Health Organization, YouTube’s north star. Another example of an awkward moment was when RSBN’s Mike Nificent was interviewing attendees of CPAC, held last weekend in Orlando, was asked by a woman about votes changing in Biden’s favor. “We can’t go there,” Nificent responded. “We’ll lose our entire platform. We have to play by the rules.” RSBN reporters are not shutting down allegations necessarily because they do not believe them. They’re being forced to do so to avoid Big Tech censorship. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Colorado absurdly proposes to fine social media companies for allowing people to talk about "conspiracies" A bill has been introduced and is currently under consideration in Colorado's state legislature seeking to establish new regulatory bodies to deal with the tech industry. This legislation aims to put pressure on tech companies when it comes to what content and practices their users are allowed to post and engage in, and allow those making claims of unfairness and discrimination to take their complaints all the way to the court - once administrative proceedings the bill aims to set up have been exhausted. The bill, whose main sponsor is Democrat member of the Colorado General Assembly Kerry Donovan, proposes creating the the digital communications division and the digital communications commission, that would register online platforms like social media sites that operate in this US state. The job of the division would be to investigate accusations that these online platforms let their users engage in behaviors that are listed in the bill and described as unfair or discriminatory, while the commission would be able to organize hearings regarding those claims. Some of the practices that the bill aims to "outlaw" are already used by tech companies themselves as an excuse to carry out waves of censorship on their platforms: alleged promotion of hate speech, conspiracies, fake news, or undermining election integrity. Other things that Colorado residents would be able to complain to the division about have to do with platforms allowing a person to violate their privacy. Other violations include harvesting users' personal data (when done by other users, not by the tech companies themselves), profiling them based on that data, selling it for location and targeted advertising, and using facial recognition or other kinds of tracking software. These will be considered as violations and investigated by the division if they are done in an unfair and discriminatory manner, the bill proposes. In order for a tech company to be scrutinized and regulated in this way, it must register with the division, and those who do business or operate services in Colorado but fail to do so will be ordered to pay $5,000 dollars for each day that this continues. MONOPOLY Amazon has a monopoly on the books market. Publishers could refuse to publish books the tech giant may ban. Amazon has recently started banning books the giant sees as promoting hate speech, and doing this in an untransparent manner, apparently believing it cannot be legally challenged on this policy. But a law in force in Seattle might actually provide legal recourse to those who believe they have been wronged by Amazon's censorship, reports suggest. Critics say that Amazon introduced new rules allowing it to remove books from its store in order to pander to cancel culture activists and pressure groups, with two recent literary casualties dealing with the issue of transgenderism in a critical manner. Amazon - as do others in the Big Tech club - wants to be seen as a private business like any other than can decide what to sell. But like much of Big Tech, Amazon's actual status is dangerously close to that of a monopoly, currently dominating 83 percent of the book market. As observers note, this means not only that existing books can be booted from the platform, seriously undermining their authors' ability to reach an audience - in addition, publishers might start refusing to publish books they think Amazon will refuse to carry. While implications of the behemoth's actions are ethical as well as legal, and many authors and publishers have tried bringing up the issue before US antitrust authorities, there doesn't seem to be much anyone can do at this time to protect themselves from Amazon's behavior, including censorship of books. But recently, Discovery Institute's political analyst John West told NTD-TV that Seattle - where the giant is headquartered - has a fairly unique law that prohibits discrimination based on political ideology. Not many other places in the US have similar legislation, West said, adding that it is part of the civil rights laws. He has no doubt that anyone discriminated on political ideology grounds can sue Amazon, without needing to be a Seattle or Washington state resident. What plaintiffs can hope to achieve is win punitive damages and attorney fees, as well as be granted injunctions, West said. As for how everyone can try to bypass Amazon and hold it accountable, the company's critics advise buying directly from publishers and supporting antitrust investigations. DEBUNKED Suppressed report says online "hate speech" doesn't reflect real-world crimes Online so-called “hate speech” does not lead to an increase in real-world hate crimes, according to an unpublished federal report. The report was sent to Congress by the Department of Commerce in January, but is yet to appear on any government website. The report, which was obtained by Breitbart News, was prepared by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA), which is under the Department of Commerce. It’s purpose was to revise the findings of a similar report by NTIA from 1993 titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes.” “The evidence does not show that during the last decade, a time of expansive growth of electronic communications, particularly on the Internet and mobile devices as well as social media, there has been a rise in hate crime incidents,” the report states. The report alleges that research into extremism fails to present data showing “any causal relationship between increased social media use and increased violence.” The report also cautions against efforts to crackdown on online speech over the baseless concerns about hate crimes. “We caution that efforts to control or monitor online speech, even for the worthy goal of reducing crime, present serious First Amendment concerns and run counter to our nation’s dedication to free expression. President Barack Obama said, “The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech.”” NTIA also condemns big tech undermining free speech under the guise of fighting hate speech. “Given that all the major social media platforms have rules against hate speech and, in fact, employ sophisticated algorithmic artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to enforce these often vague and contradictory rules in a manner also used by tyrannous regimes, it is appropriate to ask what they gain from it. Certainly, as this Report shows, the platforms have no reasonable expectation that their censorship will end hate crimes or even diminish it, as no empirical evidence exists linking increased hate speech with hate crimes. “Further, this censorship poses real dangers to our political system. Under the hate speech prohibitions and other censorship rules, the platforms have removed content that many consider seriously engaged with pressing political and social issues.” The revision of the NTIA’s 1993 report was requested under the Trump administration. However, it was during the reign of the 116th Congress, where Republicans had a small majority in the Senate, and Democrats controlled the House with a majority of 35 seats. So, it is rather baffling that the report has not been made public. Sources familiar with the drafting of the report allege that the report is being suppressed by establishment politicians who have much to gain from the “hate crimes” panic. The conclusions of the report contradict the mainstream media’s narrative of increased real-world hate crimes inspired by online hate speech. “Reports like this are typically made public,” said a source who worked closely with the NTIA on the report. “I don’t know why this report isn’t up on a government website yet. It’s already been submitted to Congress, it’s not a private thing anymore. I suspect the Civil Rights Division might have something to do with it.” The Civil Rights Division, which is part of the DoJ, is responsible for prosecuting hate crimes. The source claimed that it opposed the updated report, adding that the division is leading the “efforts to drum up hysteria” over white supremacy extremism. Reclaim The Net exists because of readers like you. Keep us going and become a supporter. We appreciate your support. Support Thanks for reading, Reclaim The Net

You received this email because you subscribed to our list. You can unsubscribe at any time. 86-90 Paul Street London London EC2A 4NE United Kingdom