Suspended: Elon Musk’s X Shocks Conservative Hollywood 4 Freedom
It’s been a week since X (Twitter) shocked the conservative filmmaking group Hollywood 4 Freedom by suspending their account. The founding members of the group are wondering what went wrong and whether it’s censorship still in action on the once-leftist platform.
On Saturday (March 15), the conservative entertainment organization Hollywood 4 Freedom, or H4F, expressed their disappointment and confusion in a post on their website announcing the suspension of their X account with the handle @Hollywood4F, which was suspended out of nowhere on Wednesday, March 12. They received an email from X notifying them of the suspension:
Your account, Hollywood4F, has been suspended for violating the X Rules after review by a human moderator. Specifically, for violating our rules against authenticity. You may not use our services to engage in inauthentic activity that undermines the integrity of X.
The message left the H4F team groping for a real explanation as to what was inauthentic about their presence or activity on X. The group’s post announcing their suspension referred to the social media platform owned by Elon Musk as:
It seems that the only thing inauthentic about this situation is this lame explanation from X. With no warning or reasonable process for us content creators to observe, this takes us all back to 2020 and does nothing for our confidence in Elon’s $44 Billion dollar purchase.
H4F, based out of Burbank (CA), produces a weekly podcast called The New Hollywood Show co-hosted by three founding members of the organization – Tatum Shank, Timothy Glover, and Siaka Massaquoi. In their latest episode of The New Hollywood Show, the group expressed their disappointment with X and questioned the suspension of their account. Shank concluded that the incident goes to show that Rumble is the only credible social platform for conservatives.
H4F does not maintain an active presence on other social media platforms except Instagram where they also experienced a few such issues with their account. While Instagram is owned by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, a leftist company, X has been considered neutral since it was purchased by Elon Musk, who now has reworked his public and political image as a MAGA conservative. Targeting a conservative account is not expected on X anymore even for expression of hard political positions. Timothy Glover of H4F says that they have not engaged in any incendiary political vitriol on X:
“We have kept all our commentary on entertainment. Political comments, if any, have been brief but always in context of how those current topics relate to the entertainment landscape.”
At the time of this writing, H4F remains suspended on X and its team members are still wondering if they would get some clarity from the platform on this issue anytime soon.
Going to Rumble, why bother?
Try Bluesky. More info, less ownership by billionaire elites. Let them go broke.
Disappointing for sure. And no explanation is the worst part.
I actually agree WTP. I get banned a lot from conservative sites. I understand. Their site, their rules. And when I see the pandemonium, the misinformation at the level of hate speak and false propaganda and information, I would rather a site with some rules, decorum and the like. But without explanation, it’s a bogus system with zero teachable moments. I don’t mind the guardrails, just want them dayglo so I can avoid hitting them.
Free speech is not the wild west; there must be laws.
WTP; along with an explanation, IMO, there should he an arbitration process too. Nothing time consuming, a simple email exchange might suffice so folks on both sides might clarify at least.
Is Rumble carrying the war plan prewar plans? Or do you know how the join the top secret chat room?
When there must be laws, the contention becomes “what is offensive?” It will be partisan on many issues. What offends conservatives may not offend the liberals and the other way around. A few years ago Whoopi Goldberg said something on “The View” that led to calls for her suspension from the show and conservatives – who hate being censored – were calling for it. I disagreed though I can’t stand Whoopi or other liberal media people, but I wouldn’t want her banned from her show or anybody from their shows. I just don’t watch liberal shows because they are not worth my time. But I have been censored on Facebook and I decided to leave. Same for X (when it was Twitter). We do have a choice.
I agree censorship at any level for any reason is a restriction.
I look to curtail lies, falsehoods, hatespeak, etc that can harm or incite violence. Could care less over the offensive.
Some things restricted is OK IMO. Yelling fire bad. Falsely telling people medicine is bad when it’s proven good is bad. Targeting people, especially when the powerful pick on those with no power bad. Many other examples and there are exceptions to all. It is most difficult to provide guardrails, to fairly operationalize it, and transparency is crucial. .
The sites are private; there is no legal call for free speech, they can do what they want.
I think where we agree is in the need for transparency as to the rules. I like an arbitration process as well.
Yeah somethings restricted is okay depending on the circumstance. Yes yelling fire in a crowded place to cause panic is fine to punish. But targeting skepticism of so-called “proven” medicine/treatments is bad. Criticism of any product of any industry should be allowed and in fact encouraged to make sure people aren’t fed any corporate interest-driven propaganda without any opposing voice. At the same time, excluding the bad/negative side of any products and approving a product for commercial/mass consumption or use is bad without letting the people all clinical/trial data and details of contracts between clients and research teams.
Yes the site owners should have the right to allow or ban who they like or dislike. After all it’s their business. But if you are a paid member or advertiser and you are censored or suspended, you should have the right to sue because you are a stakeholder in the site even if you don’t own it. Your brand promotion is affected causing you loss.
Absolutely agree on the need for transparency.
“But targeting skepticism of so-called “proven” medicine/treatments is bad. Criticism of any product of any industry should be allowed and in fact encouraged to make sure people aren’t fed any corporate interest-driven propaganda without any opposing voice.”
Bear in mind, what I am talking about is an egregious lie about a scientific fact that can lead people to harm. A great example is Ernest Dempsey’s recent story on “Revealed: Child Death Attributed to Measles Actually Caused by Medical Error” which is a brazen lie told by a discredited doctor who has had his licenses removed for these lies. Only the unvaccinated die from measles. The measles vaccine is scientifically proven to be safe, and any risks are far outweighed by it’s benefits of not catching the disease, not dying. You have the right to be against the vaccine, but should you have the lie to lie about it convincing others to not be vaccinated, catch it, and die? Is Joe the publisher culpable for any person that reads this, does what is recommended, and dies because of that decision? No, IMO, blatant, obvious, lies against the facts of science, should be censored.
Sure, people have free speech to criticize. But they shouldn’t lie as Joe, Ernest, and his discredited source do in this story that, if other people believe the lie, could kill for basically no reason beyond Joe’s, Ernest’s, and the source’s vanity and to make a buck.
This is very hard to do. What Joe does, let anything fly, is easy to do. Further, I think you missed a good point: censorship, even with transparency, may seem, or can be, considered targeting based on what we call politics.
Like I said, very difficult to do, transparency can help, an arbitration process can help, publishing any algorithms can help, but IMO these lies, saying things that incite and harm, have no place in our public discourse, and most certainly in our discourse on private websites.
Nice talking like gentlemen. I spell my name: difference duly noted.
I’m looking at the story now and need to check out the sources Dempsey cited in detail. But what jumps out here is your ignorance. Your claim of “a brazen lie told by a discredited doctor who has had his licenses removed for these lies” literally makes me laugh. Do you know what a medical license is? You really don’t know a medical license is different from a medical board certification. The doctor in the story, whom I just searched online, holds his license and is a practicing doctor. His board certifications were revoked, as the story says, because he won’t be a slave to the pharmaceutical industry. That has happened to many distinguished doctors who dared speak the truth. But to your ignorance, it’s LOLS.
Your baseless claims about safety of vaccines and your passionate plea to ban those who beware people of vaccination hazards go hand in hand with your ignorance of basic knowledge in the medical field. No wonder it’s coming from someone who can’t tell a license from board certification.
You are pro-censorship because you want to ban people from sharing their opinion about vaccines – the truths that you call lies because it defeats the lies you hold close to your heart. Well I got news for you: we won’t be censored as our free speech movement continues to win.
And since you speak of transparency, that would require an independent investigation launched into the case of the child’s death and maybe a congressional hearing inviting both sides – Dr. Kory and the doctor at the Texas hospital where the child died – to testify under oath.
Nice talking indeed – and good to know you can at least spell your name – your biggest achievement to date I suppose.
You are correct, he can still practice medicine but doubtful you will see he, or his partner, at any hospital as all hospitals have severed ties with both these gents.
Kory also has some wrongful death suits, the latest was filed just last year, the response to a motion to dismiss was filed in January of this year.
Kory took his own preventative advice and caught covid.
But this is measles, this is his charge of wrongful death, there is no wrongful death lawsuit yet. My comments were of the unprofessional nature of The Dumpster in reporting this as fact based on the unsubstantiated evidence from a discredited source without mentioning any of that or doing any further research into the facts. The Dumpster is not unique to the new world of point and click, cut n paste journalism where facts are tenuous, support less than credible, and in-depth is a four-letter word not to be used. It’s one thing to quote Kory, it’s another to leave out he makes his money by advocating against vaccines as a rabid anti-vaxer. He leaves out the guy is discredited, being sued for wrongful deaths, and perhaps his character should give the reader pause for consideration. More on that later.
As to the comments on Hospital errors being the third cause of death in the US; this is based on old and weak data but points out the need to know what’s going on here. Perhaps RRK can do something about that; it’s right up his conspiracy ass. Because even if we can’t agree on the numbers, sure seems that we should agree we should know the numbers.
Note that I do not like the medical profession on a number of issues, and the medical market is a fake market that is completely broken, patched up, and broke more. Fact is that the alarm went out in 1999, and we still don’t know the numbers. ObamaCare was supposed to clean up the data systems, make them universal, but failed miserably in that. Did a bit, but not even close to enough. How often when seeing a DR for the first time do you write down your SSN, list of meds, list of known diseases, etc? Again and again for every doctor. Same can be said of death: we seem to write it down, often wrong, and then have issues counting it….. You would think we could tell you have many people come in with gunshot wounds, or death. But we don’t.
On this one, like I said, the first report was 1999, made us scared, is still used today, but other reports have come out, eclipsed it, and still can be seen as wrong too. As on report summed: “What’s the right number? Nobody knows for sure. There’s never been an actual count of how many patients experience preventable harm. So we’re left with approximations, which are imperfect in part because of inaccuracies in medical records and the reluctance of some providers to report mistakes.” No shit, Sherlock.
What we are left with is a clear indication that deaths, wrongful deaths, in hospitals is a number worthy of us knowing, agreeing to, whether we count it directly or through estimates, we need to agree and to potentially, (probably) take action. As the prophet Mickey said in Rocky II, that pivotal moment where the recently un-comatose-d Adrian whispers “win:” Mikey exclaims: “what are we waiting fer, take this.” Now to ruin your movie experience, guess what: some form of “what are you/we waiting for” is said more often in movies than “I love you.” There’s an earworm to remember me by :>)
So, important number; community of doctors totally fubar, and maybe RFK can get to the bottom of it.
Currently the studies show wrongful deaths from 98,000 (the original 1999) which would be sixth at that time but ahead of auto accidents at the time. In 2010, a study pointed to 180,000 wrongful deaths and that was just medicare patients. Then in 2013, the “current” study concluded between 210,000 to 440,000 die wrongful deaths in the hospital representing 1/3rd of all deaths in America. It was authored by John T James, which sounds cool like James T. Kirk…. James is a brilliant leading toxicologist for NASA with so many degrees that if I listed them you would say I write too much :>) Some from UofM, a beloved school of mine too. He also has a dead son, who he claims a wrongful death, he did the research, it took a lot of work, and I don’t think he filed a wrongful death suit. But he has a real reason for his passion and he’s really good at it, but may be biased. He states: “If my son were still alive, he would ask, “Why is it broken, Daddy?” And I would say, “It is mostly selfishness and greed, my son. But sit down, because there is much more.””
Point is there is something going on here, even if James’ is biased, his work is compelling and we should come to consensus on the numerical estimates, take actions, and measure the results. How many of us have the same nagging question: why did they die, it just does not seem right, did something wrong happen? Some of that is human nature, James has proved that often it is not.
Here are three interesting reads, the first is on the nature of the problem and how unprofessional reporting builds fake conspiracies and other harms. Just to break the ice: *https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2023/07/medical-errors-are-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-and-other-statistics-you-should-question/*
The second is an unbiased view with many experts chiming in as to the status of the statistic: *https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/09/20/224507654/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-u-s-hospitals*
And the third is an analytical pooh-poohing of the whole shebang I post as just a warning on the numbers in general. Bear in mind, no matter what the number, it’s too high, we need to know why, and what can be done to do better and save more lives. *https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health/medical-error-not-third-leading-cause-death*
The bottom line: to paraphrase Stephen Stills: There’s somethin’ happenin’ here. But what it is ain’t exactly clear. There’s a doctor man with a chart over there. A-tellin’ me I got to beware. I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound, everybody look what’s going down.
What’s happening is too many deaths attributed to error, no matter what the number is. Let’s pick a number, put some fixes in, and measure our results. Like I said, right up RFK’s alley, go for it.
As to the story about a wrongful death attributed to measles with no wrongful death lawsuit……yet. Substantiate the facts, this story is weak tea and never should have been published this way. It states too many “maybes” as “fuckin-a-skippy that’s what happened” by a discredited, on many accounts, doctor.
And no lawsuit has proven to be right – means Kory has been found not liable for any of those so-called wrongful death lawsuits, correct?
Catching Covid doesn’t show anything. Vaccinated people routinely caught Covid.
The evidence is substantiated by the medical records and you will need to prove those wrong by medical expertise in a hearing/testimony. And for that you need an investigation by the authorities – who are corrupt and compromised as proven by the fact that they didn’t look into the matter to begin with. So you have no argument there.
Dr. Kory is not discredited and your ignorance about the licensure vs certification was exposed in the previous comment. You have not acknowledged that yet.
Old and weak data? lols. By what account? That is 2018 data. Much older and weaker are the numbers cooked up by the pharma-owned health agencies showing vaccines work and are safe. And you share an NPR story from 2013? Skipping for lack of credibility. Come up with some credible recent source.
RFK is not able to do anything. It’s a century of systemic corruption and abuse – much like cancer in the fourth stage.
Nice littering of the place with four or five paras that actually say thing and babble about hospital this medical that. Drunk or just lost? Maybe both? lols
The story is solid with evidence. You have nothing to offer as counter evidence, just half-awake, whacky, drunk DANG-er ranting. Maybe you should you just stick to spelling your name. Your parents could be proud of you for getting that right. 🙂
Even though you are repeating the same unfounded, unsupported, delusions, I will respond in the other thread more germane to this topic.
That’s a good characterization of your statements – unsupported and unfounded delusions. Sure, let me answer your lies on the other thread.
Ah, the ole mirror-it-back fallacious defense argument of the weak and stupid. Prove it or STFU and get your own material, quit copying me. Be an individual, be a man, state your own arguments.
Real intelligence, or total lack thereof, believes, without support, that the mirror argument is valid. Even AI says: “The “mirror argument fallacy,” also known as “accusation in a mirror,” is a rhetorical technique where someone accuses their target of actions or intentions that they themselves are planning or have already taken, effectively projecting their own behavior onto others.”
Further: “This fallacy often stems from projection, a defense mechanism where individuals unconsciously attribute their own undesirable thoughts, feelings, or behaviors to others. The speaker uses this technique to legitimize their own actions by portraying their target as a threat, thus justifying their actions as self-defense. A famous example is the Nazi assertion, before the Holocaust, that Jews were planning to wipe out the German people. The mirror argument fallacy is also known as “accusation in a mirror.””
NOT BUSTED as he actually believes this shit.