Alternative social networks represent true freedom in the US, while Youtube attempts to bias public opinion against the legal recourses available to remedy voter fraud, political commentator and executive director of Rights Watch International Paul Valone suggests. Sputnik spoke to Mr. Valone and asked him about such important issues as freedom of speech and censorship.
Sputnik: YouTube has implemented new rules saying they will remove videos "claiming that a presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors". But at the same time, one error was actually revealed in a software system used in one Michigan county, resulting in votes for Trump going to Biden. Why is YouTube introducing these rules when the official tally has not been announced, and all of the cases involving possible fraud have not been investigated?
Valone: In the most brazen attempt to influence a presidential election in American history, news and social media biased the information fed to voters. Next, in a reversal of position from the contested 2000 election, they have collaborated to pronounce election results final even as audits produce missing or altered ballots and hundreds of people have filed sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury, attesting to irregularities. That Youtube would attempt to deliver the final blow by removing politically inconvenient content surprises no one.
Sputnik: How does such a policy contradict the notions of free speech that social media networks constantly talk about?
Valone: Using methods predicted by George Orwell in 1984, American leftists have for decades sought to suppress opposing speech under the camouflage of free speech, using monikers such as “hate speech” and “racism.” In truth, the left hasn’t been “liberal” for decades.
Sputnik: How impartial is such a policy, given that the so-called Russiagate story, which has never officially been proven and supported by facts, is still on the agenda?
Valone: Unfortunately, impartiality in the media played no role in the 2020 elections, where both news and social media slanted coverage to produce a preordained political outcome. Youtube is now attempting to bias public opinion against the legal recourses available to remedy voter fraud.
Sputnik: What is the likelihood of other social media networks like Parler becoming full-fledged alternatives to mainstream sites? What does the future hold in store for them?
Valone: Alternative social networks like Parler represent true freedom in American enterprise. Increasing numbers of conservatives are flocking to these platforms, which stand an excellent chance of supplanting or replacing ideologically biased alternatives. The downside, however, will be an increased schism in the information received by different segments of American society.
Sputnik: In your opinion, what measures should be taken to protect channels on social media from censorship?
Valone: The best approach to dealing with censorship in social media is to break up monopolies, allowing free enterprise to provide alternatives exactly as the breakup of AT&T produced a revolution in telephone communications.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.