While prevalent it remains one of the most perplexing realities of our contemporary media complex; journalism outlets that exist under the 1st Amendment frequently engage in actions to limit free expression. It had been something that percolated subtly until the pandemic arrived, and then it almost became a contest to see which outlets could stifle the most narratives and questions regarding the outbreak and shutdowns.
Since then it has become accepted practice to trample on discourse, be it surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop, challenging climate data and details, asking about election veracity, and/or anything else that might be categorized as threatening the public safety or the integrity of our democracy. Now we have the largest news syndicate lobbying to rein in a social media outlet.
The Associated Press noticed that the video platform Rumble has not taken action to remove Russell Brand’s channel from its site, following his coming under fire for alleged sexual assaults taking place over a decade ago. The site dared take the provocative stance that it will wait to see if anything valid comes from the accusations made by anonymous women and rely on due process before it takes any action.
This innocent until proven guilty common sense approach has the AP describing things with “extremism”, and there is a clear attempt to implicate the Republican party in the process. Writing at the syndicate is Ali Swenson, who right from the start works to impugn both entities.
The second Republican presidential debate will be broadcast Wednesday on Fox Business Network and Univision, but the exclusive online livestream will take place on Rumble, an alternative video-sharing platform that has been criticized for allowing— and at times promoting — far-right extremism, bigotry, election disinformation and conspiracy theories.
Before delving into the empty claims, let us step back and take an overview perspective. Rumble became a space favored by those on the right who have tired of being perpetually hounded by the information gatekeepers at sites like YouTube. (Case in point, YT recently demonitized Brand’s channel based solely on the unproven and as yet uninvestigated allegations.) One of the common refrains heard in response to complaints from those on the right about being silenced has been “If you don’t like it, go start your own platform!” This has proven to be an unsatisfactory result.
Recall how Parler, after swelling with users shifting over, was completely shut down when it was inaccurately blamed as the laboratory where January 6 plotters operated without control. Conservative sites - including the Townhall Media network - are perpetually targeted for content that meets disapproval from leftist overlords. Now Rumble is in the crosshairs for not acting in an appropriately reactionary fashion. The left loves to say “go away, we don’t care about your kind”, but then when you actually leave, look who it is peering through the shrubbery to get into your business.
Swenson launches into a hyperactive dose of charges regarding Rumble, but what is revealing is how much of her accusatory content is based on supposition and interpretational offenses. There is very little in the way of tangible proof; mostly is boils down to her saying essentially: “I don’t like what they are doing!”
Let us start with this amusing passage, as she states that Rumble “flouts the rules of more mainstream ones such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.” Um, Ali? Why do you believe that an independent social platform should be expected to follow the rules of any other outlet? Rumble has its own set of standards, and if it is actually freer and allows people to speak their minds and ask questions disallowed elsewhere, they are not breaking the rules of YouTube.
It continues.
Many conservatives have sought alternative social media companies that won’t remove their posts or suspend their accounts for false or inflammatory content.
Of course, the False and Inflammatory labels are purely subjective. But here is a prime example of what I mentioned above, where these cranks are not content to let others have a say in their own environment. They need to crawl around in a platform they claim to want no part of in order to police what is being said.
Yet as Rumble’s influence has grown, the platform continues to be overwhelmed by content that denies the results of the 2020 election, pushes bigoted views about race and gender, and encourages harmful conspiracy theories.
Here is the flaw in the emotional non-thinking from this mewling article. People having opinions or questions are not a problem, unless you make them into a problem. To go on Rumble and then huff that this kind of content is not allowed on Intagram means you have actively sought out the opportunity to be offended. It is infantile to see certain posts and claim those to be a threat, when participation is, as always, voluntary.
The site’s leaderboard of top-performing content, which is featured prominently on Rumble’s home page, has regularly included multiple accounts that promote QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that has led to violent incidents and deaths.
There it is, the press’ favorite boogeyman - the neutered and ineffectual Q-anon. The vast majority of the time this nefarious cabal is said to be behind something is not because of something stated but the press insisting it is a “Q”-derived issue. Swenson links to an AP article that attributes Q to the January 6 mob, and promises more violence to arrive from this mysterious force. That no Q-anon-inspired violence or deaths have arrived in over two and a half years should explain things.
Then we come across this segment that blasts this entire premise into confetti. Swenson turned to an internet expert to assess just how bad Rumble is as a hive of online villainy. It does not go well.
It’s difficult to say conclusively whether Rumble has more hateful, extreme or conspiracy theory content than competitors such as YouTube, said Jared Holt, senior research analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based think tank that tracks online hate, disinformation and extremism. But he said Rumble uniquely appeals to creators who make that sort of content.
This…is…amazing. Somebody who has the stated job of detecting online hate cannot detect that Rumble has more of this hate – but he still goes on to say that he feels certain that it is happening on Rumble. We have no proof, but we are sure it is happening there, is what is being said. But note that while this expert cannot say conclusively Rumble fosters this unacceptable cantent, one person can do so; Ali Swenson.
It is disturbing to see a major news source looking to target a social platform in this manner. The good news – it is at the same time a neutered effort, in that the accusations being made are not supported by evidence and are delivered through bias and partisanship.