The Tangled Web of
Conspiracy Theorists,
Conservatives, and Liberal Censorship
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: June 21, 2020
Copyright Pixabay
Everyone who reads/watches the news should be aware that two prominent conspiracy theorists have been banned on all forms of social media (Alex Jones and David Icke). Even if you're not into conspiracies, the news was trumpeted loudly through mainstream media outlets. The question is whether this is deserved.
Of course, that assumes that the reader accepts that a liberal bias exists in terms of higher education, news, and culture in the 21st century. By the end of this article you should be quite knowledge of the liberal bias in society and whether the censorship of conspiracy theorists and conservative voices is justified.
But let's start with the scum of the Earth.
No, I don't mean bankers or lawyers. Close.
I mean taxes.
During the Obama administration in 2010, Republicans pushed to take control of both the House and the Senate in Congress. They funneled over $100 million in tax-exempt non-profits (which is legal due to the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling in January 2010). The results allowed Democrats to keep the Senate but lost the House. The Democrats didn't like. So they (more or less) instructed the IRS to go after conservative non-profits. In May 2013 the IRS finally admitted that they were targeting conservatives. [1] [2]
But prior to that admission, liberals called it a conspiracy theory. And that's the problem with conspiracies. You don't really know...until you know. But the idea that the IRS (under the Obama administration) was targeting conservative non-profits was laughable to liberal media outlets. They just couldn't fathom it their ideological bubble. And they would be completely wrong. Sometimes it takes years, or decades or centuries for the truth to be revealed.
You would think that higher education would aid in the struggle for the "objective truth," but it's difficult to find the truth when you’ve been "liberalized." Conservatives have forever claimed that a liberal bias exists in terms of higher education (and to a lesser degree primary and secondary education). And I would agree. Conservative values have been non grata on campus for quite some time. Not even the military are welcome on campus. An issue that the US Supreme Court had to take up and overturn in 2006. [3]
To be fair, higher education is "seen" as a liberal value, one that was suppressed by religious and authoritarian governments in the past. And that's why liberalism has value in the world. It softens extreme conservatism. Without the liberalism of the Enlightenment Period, all visible minorities would still be slaves today with the monarchy standing firmly at the top.
Liberalism has value, but unchecked liberalism is just as bad as extreme conservatism. Instead of slavery and kings, we'd live in a surveillance dystopia where people are assigned value, race, and purpose by birth with no form of free speech. Both are nightmares on their own. Be it liberal or conservatives, if left unchecked, all visible minorities are screwed either way. Hence, the balance between the two.
But that "balance" is not taking place on campus. It's gotten so bad that even comedians won't play at universities. [4] [5]
I'm offended if you make fun of any visible minority group.
Just die already.
I'm a visible minority and I don't support political correctness. If you want to shred my ideologies or various groups of people through the lens of humor, I say go for it. Russell Peters is a Canadian comedian who does just that. And almost everyone in the world loves him. Many of his jokes would be considered racist, but in a comedy venue, in context to a particular joke, it's acceptable. I support Bill Maher’s approach. "Learn how to take a joke." [6]
Why don't students on campus love comedians? Because they're politically correct cracked in the mind liberals. How did they get that way? Liberal culture, parenting, and education. Again, both liberal and conservative values have their place in the world. It's just a matter of striking a balance between the two. Both act as a check against each other’s extreme ideologies.
But just so we're clear, universal healthcare is NOT an extreme ideology. Putting a leash on corporation's lust for profit is NOT an extreme ideology. Breaking up corporate monopolies is NOT an extreme ideology. On the other hand, reparations to visible minorities IS an extreme ideology. Defunding the police IS an extreme ideology. Repealing the Second Amendment IS an extreme ideology.
While both groups believe that they don't need each other in order to make progress, rational people know that society is helped by a mix of both ideologies. It's helped by people who choose not to pigeonhole themselves into one camp or another. But telling that to liberals is like talking to a brick wall. Liberals ask conservatives to step outside of their ideological bubble but will never step outside of theirs.
In theory, the purpose of higher education is to empower you through a mix of ideologies and culture. It's not meant to act as a hard ideological shell. Contrary to what religious believers think, you don't have to see the world through a lens of good vs. evil. Universities shouldn’t be seen as battle prep for the battle between liberal and conservative values.
But this message falls on deaf ears for young liberals on campus who refuse to step outside of their ideological bubble. Don't believe me? The references speak for themselves. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
The liberal toxicity on campus is so bad that President Trump signs an executive order to enforce free speech on campus. [17]
Personally, I would classify universities as a toxic environment for free speech. A claim that most liberals would deny. But that's only because they're deluding themselves. Sadly, there are still liberal journalists that don't believe in the liberal bias in society/culture.
"Free speech isn't under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so."
Martha Gill. Guardian.
"The myth of a campus free speech crisis."
Zack Beauchamp. Vox.
"The myth of the free speech crisis."
Nesrine Malik. Guardian.
In a nutshell, these people believe that free speech is good if you have a liberal point of view as opposed to a conservative one. Other liberals compartmentalize/whitewash their view of their liberal heroes:
Charles Darwin (debatable racist)
William Shakespeare (debatable racist)
Margaret Sanger (definitely a eugenicist and racist)
George Orwell (real name Eric Arthur Blair, potentially racist and homophobic)
James Watson (allegedly racist and sexist)
Men in power in Hollywood (sexist and racist)
But homosexuality was illegal in Orwell's time.
Sorry, but that doesn't excuse his homophobia. It's illegal at the time, but with the gift of consciousness, he can still "think" and reflect on whether his homophobia is justified. Either he doesn't reflect on this issue, or worse, he does and he feels that the illegality of it is justified.
Word of advice to potential famous people. Make sure you have an informed point of view on most hot button issues.
Liberal journalists use both compartmentalization and their liberal media bias to "create the narrative." Hence, conservative voices regularly get downgraded as being "less credible."
Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Joe Rogan are part of the Intellectual Dark Web.
Educating the masses is our baby. No conservatives allowed.
Correction, education was your baby. But like everything else in the 21st century, it belongs to everyone, not a particular group of people. And that applies to visible minority groups. Get that cultural appropriation sh*t outta here.
Cultural appropriation is racism.
No it's not. Stop thinking like a child.
Only Black people can dress up as Black Panther.
Just die already.
Only Black people can style their hair as cornrows.
Only Aboriginals can make a dream catcher.
Only Black people can do dancehall moves.
Only Aboriginal people can wear a headdress.
Burn in hell.
If you support cultural appropriation, it would be wrong for visible minorities to adopt Western-European White culture and dress and act like White people. It would be wrong for different ethnic groups to eat different ethnic food or listen to different cultural music. It would be wrong to wear your hair in a different ethnic style.
I say, let people where whatever hair style they want. Liberals need to stop telling people to stay in their cultural lane. The more that liberals shame people for doing something that's supposedly "culturally inappropriate," the greater the hatred toward liberals.
The irony is that the LGBTQ movement is a symbol against cultural appropriation. If modifying your body to be another sex is okay, then why would it be wrong to modify your hairstyle as corn rows or dress like an Indian woman? The LGBTQ movement is built on redefining your own sense of identity with no limits whatsoever. If you support the LGBTQ movement (which I do), you can't support the ideology of cultural appropriation. I would think that would be obvious to any intelligence person who thinks about the consequences of their ideologies. Perhaps it's wrong of me to expect intelligent thinking from liberals.
On another front, words do matter. I don't mind changing national anthems to more gender neutral language. It should have been gender natural from the start, but the sexism throughout history put a wrench in those plans. I support the use of "humankind," vs. "mankind." Why? One is sexist, the other isn't. Using the word "man" to represent all people is sexist. If you can't see that...then I can't help you.
Manholes to maintenance hole? Sure, but it's not really sexist since men and women both have shafts to "drop off waste."
On the other hand, I don't support taking out the words "Christmas" or "Easter." I don't support ending the terms "brother," "sister," "father," "mother," "he," or "she." That's just political correctness gone wild. Contrary to what liberals might have you believe, you can still support transgender people and use those terms. If someone in the LGBTQ movement says it's offensive, they're just being an *sshole.
You have to call me by the pronoun I use to identify myself.
The world doesn't revolve around you. Stop acting like a child.
I have no problem using a transgender pronoun. But at the same time, I won't stop using gender pronouns around my non-transgender friends. It's wrong to expect everyone to fall into line with your ideologies. We live in a mix of ideological constructs. Yours are not more important than others. Accept it and move forward. Discrimination is one thing, but not using the proper pronouns is not discrimination. Pretending that it is hurts everyone.
And no, voters didn't vote Trump into power because of the "backlash" of political correctness. Sure, that's an issue, but it's not a deciding factor (at least for most people).
Moving onto social media, the censorship of conservative views and conspiracy theorists are out in full force with bans, shadow banning, or demonetization. This is a significant escalation relative to the last 20 years. In the past, YouTube and Facebook allowed almost all content on their sites and let the chips fall wherever.
But the rise of Trump distorted that equilibrium. And it's not hard to guess why. The deep state was expecting a huge win for Hilary, all with the full support of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood. The fact that the results lurched the other way caused every liberal to go into panic mode and go to Plan X.
Do whatever it takes to get Trump out of office.
It's gotten so bad that liberal journalists keep throwing bad news at Trump hoping that something will stick for the American public. While Democrats took back control of the House in 2018, the failure to take control of the Senate was a huge loss. But the one thing that remains consistent is the New York Times Russian conspiracy.
The Russians have compromised President Trump and own him.
NYT journalists wholeheartedly believe (since 2016) this conspiracy. Even the failure of the Mueller report didn't shake their conspiracy theory. For the New York Times, Russia is and always will be...the other woman.
Sorry, wrong context.
In the mind of liberals, Russia will always be the bogeyman waiting to scare American children in the night.
Hypothetical, if Russia went to war with the US, I would bet that the NYT would still believe that Russia was the puppet master. That’s how strong the liberal ideological bubble is. It’s funny because such claims would only make the Russian people continue to vote Putin into power.
They said he put the American president in power. Russia is powerful again. Putin has my vote.
But that's the way ideological bubbles work. No matter the evidence, you believe what you want to believe. While conservatives do this as well, I somehow expect more from the "highly educated" liberal camp.
But that highly educated camp doesn't like losing, and will do anything to prevent a loss in 2020. Today, if you take the conservative point of view on any given issue, you'll be censored and shamed through social media. If you take the liberal point of view, you'll never be censored and will be praised on social media. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
In terms of censorship, it's gotten so bad that liberal journalists are now arguing that social media companies are private companies so they can censor whatever they want. That's how devolved the argument has become. It's gone from an ethical debate to the legalities of a corporation and what constitutes a "public square." In terms of the liberal bias on campus, universities are private corporations, but they also receive federal and state/provincial funding, which complicates the matter.
Things are so bad in the Democrat camp that they're willing to put a candidate in the beginnings of Alzheimer's or Dementia on the ballot. In his more recent gaffes, Joe Biden said that Black people aren't Black enough if they vote for Trump. [18] That's the type of candidate that Democrats are throwing all their weight behind. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
While Silicon Valley is throwing the full force of their power behind Biden, [19] all I see is white people controlling visible minorities. And visible minorities in turn being conditioned to accept their second tier status.
It’s "dark money" for Trump but clean for Obama and Biden. What a joke.
But the bigger joke is that Google, in all its YouTube censorship glory, are beholden to China. Aside from the past efforts to enter the rich Chinese market, in May 2020 YouTube censors comments that criticize the Chinese government. [20] [21] They can pretend that it was an error, but we all know that Google is desperate to get into the Chinese market.
Still not enough in order to believe the liberal bias in society? How about the COVID protests? The first group to protest COVID was conservatives in April 2020. And they got shamed badly for it by liberal media outlets.
Guardian:
Epidemiologist predicts 'new epidemic surge' as [conservative] protesters across the US flout social distancing measures...
As healthcare workers in Colorado and Pennsylvania staged counter-protests against rightwing anti-quarantine rallies that continue to spread across the US, some experts warned such rallies could cause a surge in coronavirus cases.
Several nurses gathered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Monday, where a protest against stay-at-home orders was taking place. The nurses carried signs urging people to go home.
Whitmer [Governor of Michagan] reportedly said though people wanted to "do the wonderful American tradition of dissent and demonstration...it's just so dangerous to do that." [22]
Vox:
Last weekend, thousands gathered in Washington, Michigan, Texas, Maryland, and California to protest lockdown orders resulting from the coronavirus pandemic.
But what has been most glaringly obvious about these protests isn't the far-right theatrics. It's that almost everyone marching to end stay-at-home orders is white. [23]
New York Times:
For those who've chosen to put their trust in science during the pandemic it's hard to fathom the decision to gather to protest while a deadly viral pathogen — transmitted easily by close contact and spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people alike — ravages the country. But it shouldn't come as a surprise. This week's public displays of defiance — a march for the freedom to be infected — are the logical conclusion of the modern far-right's donor-funded, shock jock-led liberty movement. [24]
Wired:
It's important to understand who these [conservative] protesters are and why they're demonstrating. "They’re going to claim it's all about freedom and Constitutional rights. People will say it’s about economic anxiety," says Christopher Sebastian Parker, who studies American politics and social movements at the University of Washington. "That's so much bullshit hogwash."
It is vitally important not to be falsely equivalent here: Most Americans will never shrug off social-distancing guidelines and take to the streets. The protests are unpopular, even among (non-MAGA-hatted) conservatives. [25]
White privilege? Too dangerous for dissent? Hard to fathom the decision to protest with a deadly pathogen on the loose? I see. However, after George Floyd's death a month later, liberal media outlets change their tune very quickly.
Guardian:
But have protests really played a critical role in spreading new cases of coronavirus? The best science suggests probably not a lot.
The evidence is becoming clear that wearing a mask can substantially lower the risk of spread and severity of illness. We are seeing more and more masks worn by protesters. A second feature of gatherings that affects the spread of the virus is whether they happen outdoors or indoors. Here, too, research suggests that outdoor activities are much safer than indoor ones.
History teaches us that civic protests are how nations get better. Now, more than ever, they are essential. [26]
New York Times:
Some infectious disease experts were reassured by the fact that the protests were held outdoors, saying the open air settings could mitigate the risk of transmission. In addition, many of the demonstrators were wearing masks, and in some places, they appeared to be avoiding clustering too closely.
"The outdoor air dilutes the virus and reduces the infectious dose that might be out there, and if there are breezes blowing, that further dilutes the virus in the air," said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University. "There was literally a lot of running around, which means they're exhaling more profoundly, but also passing each other very quickly." [27]
Verge:
But a narrow focus on whether the number of COVID-19 cases may spike after protests is a distraction from the real health dangers of police brutality and racism.
"The threat to Covid control from protesting outside is tiny compared to the threat to Covid control created when governments act in ways that lose community trust. People can protest peacefully AND work together to stop Covid. Violence harms public health." [28]
The risk is tiny? Protesting racism is more important than your life? Really? That's the liberal bias relative to COVID-19.
Conservatives are horrible people for protesting and infecting people.
Liberals have a right to protest and can do it safely.
Conservative protestors are shamed but liberal protestors are trumpeted and encouraged. Almost all Democrat/liberal elected officials shamed conservative protestors and then flip-flopped when the protests turned liberal. That’s a combination of junk science and the liberal bias. In fact, the liberals believe that if you don't support the Black Lives Matter movement, you're a racist. This is the game. The liberal game of conditioning through biased coverage, cheap sound bites, and tweets.
I can already hear the thoughts by liberal journalists about Trump's campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma yesterday.
An indoor stadium? Perfect. Just catch the virus and die already.
Liberals walk a very disingenuous path. Their real feelings are bottled up and soothed through prescription medications. On the other hand, conservatives usually say what they mean. They get criticized more for it, but at least they're genuine in their words.
And now that we've firmly established a liberal bias in society, we can get to the final issue of the article. The censorship of conspiracy theorists by liberal institutions and whether they deserve it. While I support free speech, social media platforms are NOT defenders of free speech. They're just companies providing a good/service trying to make money.
Hence, I understand why Alex Jones was censored. Not taking into account the amount of libel he's said over the years, he crossed the line with his early Sandy Hook claims about parent actors and children not existing. Many conspiracy theorists regularly believe that if everyone in the world just listened to them, they would understand.
And Jones is no different. He believed that if the world only saw the evidence for Sandy Hook, they would understand. The world saw his evidence. And they weren't impressed. Asking questions is one thing. Claiming a false flag (with real people) is another. But Jones' Sandy Hook claims were beyond a regular false flag. Of course, he's walked it back now due to legal threats (which they have the right to file), but the damage is already done, to the world and to himself.
It's similar with David Icke today. The reason why he was banned from YouTube recently wasn't because of his reptilian conspiracies. It was because he claimed that COVID-19 didn't exist and that 5G towers are causing people to get sick. I watched the full London Live interview of Icke (which is now banned).
David Icke's claim about COVID virus not existing is 100% false. Period. And that's the problem with many conspiracy theorists. In our race to stay ahead of the deep state curve, we rush to judgment or automatically assume everything what the government says is false and then take the counter-position. This is a trait of a beginner conspiracy theorist.
In the conspiracy theory movement, people who have been in it for 10 years, 20 years, 40 years...are prone to getting lost in their world of conspiracy theories. They're unable to see outside of their ideological bubble because their perception is completely warped from reality. In questioning the existence of the Sandy Hook kids...in questioning the existence of a virus, both Alex Jones and David Icke went too far.
While Jones' position is worse, Icke's position is so far from reality that it causes mature conspiracy theorists to cringe. The idea that people around the world have been infected by 5G radiation is laughable. Many countries don't even have 5G. And no, you can't blame 4G radiation for causing the death of almost half a million people. Yes, I'm against 5G radiation and advocate EMF shielding of pregnant women and developing children. Simon Parkes (another lesser known conspiracy theorist) advocates the 5GBioShield. But it's ludicrously overpriced and stretches the limits of what empirical evidence can show.
The 5GBioShield evidence for "balancing 5G" is nice to say but meaningless under empirical testing (the mechanism of action is beyond testing through the empiricism of the scientific method. Even though I have beliefs outside of the realm of empiricism, charging $350.00 USD is pushing it. There's no surprise that it's under scrutiny right now. [29]
While I'm critical of 5G technology, I don't believe that 5G is the end of the world. Like all things, it can cause harm. Hence, it's a matter of mitigating, deflecting, and preventing that harm. Icke shouldn't have been banned because of his ludicrous 5G claims. Yes, it may have pushed people to destroy 5G towers. But you'd have to blame that on the people. You can't blame a conspiracy theorist for the action of their followers. It's disingenuous.
And what about hate speech you ask? Most major conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones, David Icke, and Simon Parkes) don't discriminate based on skin color. Hate speech is a loaded term today and includes homophobia, sexism, islamophobia, body shaming, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-police...and such.
And no, I don't believe that any of it should be censored. I believe in a free market of ideas, even racist alt-right ones. Just in case you're not in the know, racism has never been stopped by not talking/spreading it through social media. The racists will simply go deeper in their networks, reinforce their ideologies, and nurture the next generation of racists.
Censoring crazy conspiracies or conservative channels is the wrong step for social media companies, and you should expect a backlash. One greater than the 2018 shooting incident at YouTube in San Bruno, California by Nasim Najafi Aghdam. [30]
And that backlash will repeat itself for COVID. Today, YouTube and Facebook are censoring anything that doesn't toe the line for the World Health Organization's view on COVID. YouTube even censors Dr. Knut M. Wittkowski, a biostatistician who disagrees with the COVID advice coming from the WHO. [31]
Is YouTube more knowledgeable than Wittkowski in terms of the COVID? Of course not. But censoring him and other docs (like Plandemic) tells people that YouTube is only interested in presenting the "official view," something that all conspiracy theorists oppose.
Unfortunately, this is the way things are going in the surveillance state. The deep state temporarily lost control on their American players in 2016 and are making sure that they regain it in 2020. A world of control and surveillance has little value in the end. But these are the ideals that liberal media outlets and journalists believe in and are conditioning you to accept. If they had it their way, they'd also censor religious claims. So why don't they?
Because it's protected by the Constitution.
Wrong. Remember, social media companies are not yet considered a public utility. That means they can toss whatever they don't want. They don't ban conservative channels because the backlash would be enormous. And Democrats are desperate for a win in 2020. Remember, 80% of people in America are religious in one way or another. Chopping them off would be the same as Google chopping off its profits. Not exactly the wisest business model.
As most conspiracy theorists already know, the New World Order isn't coming. It's already here and has been for some time. The censorship of videos that don't "toe the line" is just one feature of this dystopia. Stop pretending that it doesn't exist. Stop pretending that you're not part of the problem. And for god sakes, stop pretending that you're living a genuine life when in reality you're living a disingenuous one in your ideological bubble.
Step out of it sometime and experience the world without a filter. Who knows, it may give you a new perspective on life.
References:
[1] Korte, Gregory. IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups. USA Today. May 12, 2013.
[2] Rapperport, Alan. In Targeting Political Groups, I.R.S. Crossed Party Lines. New York Times. October 5, 2017.
[3] Supreme Court Upholds Law Allowing Military Recruiters on Campus. NPR. March 7, 2006.
[4] Flanagan, Caitlin. That’s Not Funny! Atlantic. September 2015.
[5] Jerry Seinfeld Is Tired of Political Correctness - Late Night with Seth Meyers. Late Night with Seth Meyers. YouTube video posted by: Late Night with Seth Meyers, June 9, 2015.
[6] Real Time with Bill Maher_ New Rule – Learn How to Take a Joke (HBO). Real Time with Bill Maher. YouTube video. Posted by: Real Time with Bill Maher, June 19, 2015.
[7] Rampell, Catherine. A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech. Washington Post. September 18, 2017.
[8] Kristof, Nicholas. A Confession of Liberal Intolerance. New York Times. May 7, 2016.
[9] Friedersdorf, Conor. Should Any Ideas Be 'Of the Table' in Campus Debates? Atlantic. June 30, 2016.
[10] Volokh, Eugene. At the University of Oregon, no more free speech for professors on subjects such as race, religion, sexual orientation. Washington Post. December 26, 2016.
[11] Hutter, Kristy. Campus clash: Students battle over what constitutes free speech. CBC News. April 18, 2017.
[12] Struyk, Ryan. What It's Like To Be A Conservative on a Liberal College Campus. ABC News. April 25, 2014.
[13] Hemmer, Nicole. Eternally frustrated by "liberal" universities, conservatives now want to tear them down. Vox. March 8, 2017.
[14] Fuller, Thomas. Let Right-Wing Speakers Come to Berkeley? Faculty Is Divided. New York Times. September 22, 2017
[15] Gross, Neil. Professors are overwhelmingly liberal. Do universities need to change hiring practices? Los Angeles Times. May 20, 2016.
[16] Wente, Margaret. You can't say that on campus. Globe and Mail. March 3, 2018.
[17] Haberman, Maggie and Shear, Michael D. Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Free Speech on College Campuses. New York Times. March 21, 2019.
[18] Cineas, Fabiola. Do Joe Biden's "you ain't black" comments ultimately matter? Vox. May 25, 2020.
[19] Schleifer, Theodore. Tech billionaires are plotting sweeping, secret plans to boost Joe Biden. Vox. May 27, 2020.
[20] Vincent, James. YouTube is deleting comments with two phrases that insult China’s Communist Party. Verge. May 26, 2020.
[21] Flood, Brian. YouTube investigating 'error' that deleted comments offensive to China's Communist Party. Fox News. May 26, 2020.
[22] Gabbatt, Adam. US anti-lockdown rallies could cause surge in Covid-19 cases, experts warn. Guardian. April 21, 2020.
[23] Hoskin, Maia Niguel. The whiteness of anti-lockdown protests. Vox. April 25, 2020.
[24] Warzel, Charlie. Protesting for the Freedom to Catch the Coronavirus. New York Times. April 19, 2020.
[25] Ellis, Emma Grey. The Anti-Quarantine Protests Aren't About Covid-19. Wired. April 27, 2020
[26] Jha, Ashish. Why protests aren't as dangerous for spreading coronavirus as you might think. Guardian. June 18, 2020.
[27] Rabin, Roni Caryn. Will Protests Set Off a Second Viral Wave? New York Times. May 31, 2020.
[28] Wetsman, Nicole. Blaming protesters for COVID-19 spread ignores the bigger threats to health. Verge. June 3, 2020.
[29] Cellan-Jones, Rory. Trading Standards squad targets anti-5G USB stick. BBC News. May 28, 2020.
[30] Beckett, Lois. YouTube shooting suspect was angry site stopped paying her, father says. Guardian. April 4, 2018.
[31] Levine, Jon. YouTube censors epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski for opposing lockdown. New York Post. May 16, 2020.