Social Media platforms are scrambling for the hearts and minds of the people.

Censorship of so called ‘misinformation’ is taking place at a colossal pace. From videos of medical staff blowing the whistle on the manipulation of death certificates, investigative journalists and medical professionals who dare speak out against the mainstream narrative, as well as videos of empty hospitals claiming to be overcrowded with Covid-19 patients; the information wars are heating up.

However, there is one video doing the rounds that has got the mainstream media’s knickers in a twist and that is a video called “The Plandemic”.

It must have caused a right stir since the growing number of articles and videos being published in order to debunk it are popping up faster than mushrooms.

The British Bullshit Corporation ( BBC ), have even created a ‘specialist disinformation reporter’ ( Marianna Spring ) in order to combat what they think is fake news or information that is not supported by reliable medical and scientific advice.

Even Twitter said that they too will remove unverified claims that could prove dangerous.

Fine.

So why didn’t the BBC report on the misinformation the public and Boris Johnson was sold in Ferguson’s flawed, unreliable and unverified computer model ? Why didn’t they go out of their way and conduct an independent investigation of A: Ferguson’s prior false predictions, and B: the accuracy of his model ( which only now has started to come to light).

In essence the journalists don’t have the cojones to question authority, nor do they posses the freedom of thought to go out and independently investigate their sources.

Instead, and in many cases, they simply summon the argument from authority when they want debunk a theory that doesn’t agree with them, or go on and attack the personality or credentials of the video maker.

If they did a shred of research ( which there is a surprising lack of when you consider that most ‘journalists’ are university educated ) they would indeed find research papers and studies purporting to disprove what they have been told.

For example in the book Invisible Rainbow, Arthur Firstenberg makes a compelling case that many environmental problems as well as certain diseases are related to electrical pollution. It is therefore not necessarily a conspiracy – as they like to call it – to suggest that the upcoming millimetre wave 5G technology as a potential contributing factor to illness.

But one could go on for hours debunking debunking articles and videos. That is not the point. The main issue is whether these media platforms have the right to decide for us what to believe in.

And a firm staunch NO! is the answer to that.

In a true free democratic society, people should be able to believe in whatever they want to believe in. They should be able to read whatever they like, and watch whatever they like and form their own opinions, judgements and analysis of the content they have consumed regardless of any authority that is looming over their heads.

But history shows we have been here before. Take the invention of the printing press for example. With copies of the bible now available at a much cheaper price, the layman could afford to read the bible on their own in complete context instead of giving that privilege to a priest – who read snippets of it here and there. It was no wonder the church felt it was losing control over the printed word, which led to pope Innocent VIII issuing a declaration of censorship, requiring all printed publications to be approved by the church.

Note any similarities? Social media and their mainstream media partners want to control the flow of information themselves. They want people to get their news and updates from their own sources – not third party sources. This is their job, this is what keeps them earning their coin and daily bread. Even if that means rubbishing the content of others. So be it. But you must buy into their news.

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and many other platforms have got their strategy totally wrong. They risk content and ideas going underground unmonitored, while potentially losing content consumers to rival alternatives as people begin to lose trust with the mainstream platforms.

As people begin to wake up, one can imagine massive repercussions heading their way.

Could it spell the end social media operates ?

Could it usher in a new era of true democratic social media ?

I don’t know.

But once all this is over I hope an independent enquiry into the mainstream media’s coverage and practise during this ‘pandemic’, and social media’s tyrannical grip over user content will be carried out for the whole world to watch.