As Twitchy reported earlier Monday, the British press seems to be pushing the United Kingdom to ban video platform Rumble from the country under the authority of the new "Online Safety Bill." Why? Well, for one thing, Rumble is still allowing Russell Brand to monetize his videos. As you know, Brand has been accused of — but not arrested or charged with — sexual assault. As we noted, Parliament itself turned into a giant Karen and sent a letter to Rumble's CEO asking to speak with the manager. Rumble wrote back and told Parliament to shove it.
Wednesday's Republican debate will be streamed on Rumble, which is a big concern to the Associated Press, as Rumble is known for promoting far-right extremism, bigotry, election disinformation, and conspiracy theories.
Rumble will stream Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate. The alternative video-sharing platform has been criticized for allowing— and at times promoting — far-right extremism, bigotry, election disinformation and conspiracy theories. https://t.co/MWqmAbr2aM— The Associated Press (@AP) September 25, 2023
All the red flags are there: now-meaningless smears like "far-right extremism" and "conspiracy theories" and "disinformation" — all terms applied to anything liberals don't like.
Liberals used to say if you don't like a company, build your own. Conservatives were fed up with being censored on YouTube and built their own video platform. These are all the same people who think X has been taken over by Nazis and "Sound of Freedom" was for QAnon people with brainworms.
Start your own "platform" and you can ban as many people as you want.— Me (@Keefer1958) September 25, 2023
This isn't difficult.
Free speech platforms are the best platforms— bedpost (@Cmin914725641) September 25, 2023
Maybe just free speech?— ⏳ Suspended in Time ⏳ (@SuspendedAnd1) September 25, 2023
They host, not promote.
What the hell happened to the Associated Press. What a joke. Is there ANY unbiased journalism?!— Mitch Stockton (@MitchStockton) September 25, 2023
Well we certainly cannot have a platform putting out more disinformation than the AP does.— Deuce Fathoms (@DeuceFathoms) September 25, 2023
That would be terrible and what if it's misinformation that is the wrong kind of misinformation than the kind of misinformation that the AP sanctions as "real" information? 😲😲😲😲
The press’ opposition to First Amendment protections is astonishing— Dave Weaver (@WeaverCommaDave) September 25, 2023
This tweet from the @AP tells you everything you need to know about legacy media.— Michele Blood (@BloodBrief) September 25, 2023
Rumble has also been celebrated for not falsely shaping reality like AP and the other major news sources that gaslight some issues and ignore others.— Bob Richey (@EyeH8This) September 25, 2023
Criticised by who? Could it be by AP and legacy media? Could it be by those who have a vested interest in Rumble being shut down?— BobKatBill (@BobKatBill) September 25, 2023
Criticized by whom? Let's check the article and find out. Ali Swenson writes:
By bringing viewers to Rumble to watch the GOP debate, as it did with the first one last month, the Republican National Committee is driving potential voters to a site crawling with content that flouts the rules of more mainstream ones such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.
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.
In the weeks since the first debate, 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.
An analysis from NewsGuard, a firm that monitors online misinformation, found last year that nearly half the videos suggested by Rumble in response to searches for common election-related terms came from untrustworthy sources.
And there it is … NewsGuard. Might as well have asked Snopes or Politifact.
So it’s a free speech platform unlike YouTube.— Daniel Martin (@DanielM49452560) September 25, 2023
This editor remembers writing a few posts at the beginning of the Biden administration about how mainstream media outlets started running op-eds asking if free speech is really a good thing. Incredible: The same press that relies on free speech seems intent on destroying it. Maybe we can follow the U.K.'s example and just ban "disinformation."