The New York Times released a hit piece on the alternative social media network - Gab, after the riots at the U.S. Capital on Jan 6th. The pre-planned information operation was anticipated by Andrew Torba, Gab CEO, who removed a myriad of fake accounts proposing violence on the site. The accounts were taken down immediately.
The goal seems to be to make the case Gab should be shut down for 'inciting violence'.
The video below is Torba's explanation of the incident. It is quite good and makes a great case for Gab.
i wouldn't use the NY TIMES to line my bird cage he. might become brainwashed and catch the liberal brain disease
The New York Times has not been guilty of committing journalism in decades. The are now today’s Pravda.
Mr. Torba,
I listened to your very calm and rational defense of Gab, and I believe you are telling the truth. Listening to your explanation, a disturbing thought occurred to me (maybe I'm "paranoid", but this "idea" really hit me hard.
The "disturbing thought" was that the New York Times story had a MORE SINISTER PURPOSE than to "merely" accuse Gab of supporting this attack in Washington DC.
Given that it was the NEW YORK TIMES story, APPEARING BEFORE the rally itself that provided "detailed information" regarding "routes into and out of the city" etc.,would it not make more sense to think that perhaps IT WAS THE NEW YORK TIMMES THAT WANTED TO GET THIS INFORMATION OUT TO the very radicals THEY are accusing YOU of "informing" and at the same time, attempting to SMEAR you and Gab for doing what THEY WERE DOING IN THEIR STORY, to wit, providing the very information NECESSARY for the success of the riot while setting themselves up as "the guys in the white hats", who are "informing the public of this 'dastardly plot'
as a 'public service exposing terrorist websites to the community'." (Kind of a "false flag-type operation by someone to DIVERT attention to someone else FOR SOMETHING THEY THEMSELES WERE DOING), which has been a Democrat tactic for years. This way, they could get the information out to the people who "needed it", while at the same time also getting rid of an unwanted rival platform.
Does any of this sound like a possible explanation of what their real motive was?
If the big tech companies can shut down the president of the United States, they can certainly do it to you. Boycott them all, including Amazon. Shop local.
https://worldchangebrief.webnode.com
INSURRECTION ACT "PROBABLY" SIGNED -
Military In Control of the US, Under Commander In Chief Trump/
Updates Will Follow Throughout The Day
Absolutely right.