Bowing To Liberal Pressure

PUBLISHED: 5:03 PM 17 Sep 2018
UPDATED: 5:05 PM 17 Sep 2018

A Twitter Account Was Targeting for the Complete Annihilation of Breitbart

One man and a twitter account has nearly destroyed Breitbart News then gone on to subvert advertising giants like Google and Facebook into censoring and suppressing conservative sites out of business.

One day Rivitz discovered the power of twitter while having a snit waiting for his purchase to be brought from the stockroom at Ikea.

How much havoc can one guy with a Twitter account cause? “Sleeping Giants claims that it has convinced over 4,000 companies to pull their advertising from Breitbart News,” Jeff Charles asserts.

The Race Relations & Media Affairs Correspondent at Liberty Nation notes, “CNN declared that the news site’s traffic has steadily declined over the past two years, attributing this supposed decrease to the activist group.”

Sleeping Giants founder Matt Rivitz told liberal Recode, advertisers “started coming off by the tens and then hundreds and then thousands.” Effortlessly, he seems to have started a butterfly-effect chain reaction with serious consequences. After advertising giants like Google and Facebook got sucked into the controversy, the whole mess spiraled totally out of control.

“Breitbart is really the test case, right? It’s a much bigger problem than Breitbart, he adds.” Facebook, along with Google and their YouTube subsidiary are the new targets. “These companies are helping monetize sites like that. It encourages them to get more clicks.”

Bowing to liberal pressure without a fight, Facebook’s “recent algorithm changes have buried conservatives on the platform,” a report published on tech website The Outline concluded. “Conservative and right-wing publishers ‘were hit the hardest’ by the algorithm change,” The Daily Caller News Foundation writes.

“While the engagement numbers of most predominantly liberal publishers remained unaffected.”

Contrary to popular belief, Sleeping Giants isn’t what one Twitter user accused, “5 fluid gender guys still living off their parents pretending to speak with legitimacy.” It turns out, after his cover was blown, it was just one guy with a background in advertising. “I’ve been writing ads. I’m a freelance copywriter. I’ve been writing ads for 25 years.”

One day Rivitz discovered the power of twitter while having a snit waiting for his purchase to be brought from the stockroom at Ikea.

“I happened to be at Ikea with my wife waiting for a dresser to come out or something. It took two hours and no one was back behind the counter for me to talk to, so I hit them up on Twitter. And it was one of 10 tweets I sent in my entire life. They got back right away. ‘How can we help?’ And I said, ‘Well, maybe you can tell the people behind the counter to bring out my dresser. I just want to get out of here.’”

That got him thinking the same idea could be used to hatch an insidious public relations campaign. “Sleeping Giants started just after the 2016 election. It really started because of my white-hot hatred for Steve Bannon.”

“Being in the business, you learn… with your ad dollars, you support different things. It used to be that you would buy a TV spot and I would go make it and it would end up on air on a certain show. That’s all it was.” Times have changed in a big way.

“My next logical step was, being in advertising, who is supporting it? Who is sending ads over to Breitbart? Who’s trafficking their ads at Breitbart? It turns out that Google and Facebook and a lot of programmatic companies were running ads on there.”

The first target that caught his eye was SoFi, “which is a mortgage lending company in San Francisco and they’re pretty well-known. They were pretty progressive. I just couldn’t believe that they were supporting that. So I set up this anonymous Twitter handle.”

The huge flaw in his logic is that ads don’t work that way, either. In today’s world, a company sets up an account with a provider like Google or Facebook to post ads. The provider decides where to place them, not the advertiser.

Any eligible site that is approved to display ads could get ones from any of the platform’s advertisers through a placement “algorithm” known only to the platform. That’s why they are called “programmatic.”

Rivitz began to terrify easily intimidated hipsters into demanding their ads never show anywhere near a site where there might be “a ‘white guy who thinks he has a right to exist,’” as one affected content provider put it.

“So you’re doing the low-hanging hipster fruit first,” Recode’s host Kara Swisher asked. “Yeah, that’s easy. Those are easy, yeah,” Rivitz admits. After SoFi pulled their ads that showed on Breitbart, “another one popped up. I think it was for Warby Parker which also didn’t make any sense at all.” Swisher knew them well, “Yeah, those guys. Man. Couldn’t be more hipster. Brooklyn.”

“Yeah and right away, they hit the panic button. They were like, ‘Wow. We’re gonna blacklist that. We know how to do that.’”

The war for your mind began quietly. Emboldened by initial success, Rivitz soon discovered the power of the “pinned Tweet.” He decided to give his followers some clear guidance.

“Where the gasoline got poured on, I realized if I’ve got all these people following, why aren’t they doing something, too? So I put a set of instructions on the pinned tweet. I didn’t even know there was a ‘pin tweet’ at the time. Someone had to explain it to me. I put it up at the top of the page.”

Rivitz and his acolytes pressured Renaissance Technologies to pull their Breitbart investments. They targeted Fox News and Laura Ingraham over a tweet, then “posted the name, position and email address of a Hulu vice president and encouraged its tens of thousands of followers to email her and demand that the streaming website boycott Ingraham’s show.”

Liberal masses soon started whining anytime a liberal company’s ad got paired with anything even remotely conservative. As a result, DCNF reports, “companies are now expected to guarantee they won’t finance speech liberals deem outside of acceptable discourse.”

“In practice,” they continue, “this means blacklisting right-of-center voices ruled to have crossed the line,” by cutting off their revenue stream.

Media Matters has been fighting “boycott wars” for years against Fox News, especially attacking Bill O’reilly but Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have been similarly targeted.

DCNF points out, “under fire from the left, digital advertisers in turn pressured tech companies to get ahead of the problem by weeding out potentially controversial topics and voices from the advertising pool.”

After major brands started yanking their YouTube and Google ads, “Google promptly revamped its advertising system to give advertisers more control, but the pressure hasn’t stopped.”

In March, one of the worlds heaviest advertisers, Unilever, threatened both Facebook and Google to drop them as providers unless they regulated more strictly, insisting they won’t pay for “platforms or environments that do not protect our children or which create division in society, and promote anger or hate.”

The warning came from Keith Weed, the company’s chief marketing officer. When he talks, it seems like even E.F. Hutton listens.

“YouTube’s recent demonetization push was meant to accommodate advertisers seeking to avoid controversial content,” a spokesperson for Google argues.

In response to the extortion, Google doubled the size of YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program, “adding 50 government agencies and non-governmental organizations to the program,” policy director Juniper Downs announced.

The groups “trusted” to censor content include blatantly liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. The activist known “for smearing pedestrian conservative organizations as ‘hate groups’” is allowed a seat at the table to “work closely with engineers who design YouTube’s algorithms,” but conservative groups don’t have an equal voice.

DCNF notes “the vast majority of YouTube’s Trusted Flaggers remain unknown to the public, hidden behind confidentiality agreements.”

Downs had a chance to educate a Senate Committee on how it works during the recent bias hearings. “Some borderline videos, such as those containing inflammatory religious or supremacist content without a direct call to violence or a primary purpose of inciting hatred, may not cross these lines for removal.”

Despite recognizing that controversial doesn’t automatically mean unacceptable they censor them anyway, “But we understand that these videos may be offensive to many and have developed a new treatment for them,” Downs testified. The so called treatment is more like “shock therapy,” some say, and just as ineffective.

Anything that used to be protected under the First Amendment as Free Speech, can now be censored. “Identified borderline content will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.”

Liberals are thrilled. “Initial uses have been positive and have shown a substantial reduction in watch time of those videos,” she added. Tucker Carlson strongly disagrees. He was demonetized for his views.

“Google seems to be letting politics dictate who is allowed to make money from their platform,” Tucker broadcast.

Carlson was flayed in the liberal network media for daring to make the obscene observation nobody knows what “diversity is our greatest strength” means. “One would have imagined that if you were going to plan the largest social-engineering program in all of human history, you would have some kind of clear goal, which you could explain,” Carlson stated.

“They literally have absolutely no explanation as to why we are flooding our country with all of these third world hordes, or how it is making us stronger, and when asked directly, they simply say that even asking why is an act of hatred of the color of the skin.”

As part of their response, Facebook made two changes to their algorithm in January, 2018, CEO Mark Zuckerberg confirms. “First, Facebook slashed news articles’ share of the newsfeed from five percent to four percent. Second, Facebook began boosting certain “trusted” news outlets (like CNN), and suppressing other, ostensibly less trustworthy sources.”

The end result was, as DCNF reports, “together, the changes boosted a ‘trusted’ minority of news outlets while suppressing their competitors.”

Another slick trick went down in flames in “just three months” because of conservative backlash. Google tried a “fact-check” operation which effectively “smeared conservative websites by falsely attributing inaccurate statements to them,” an investigation done by DCNF revealed. “The fact-check targeted conservative websites almost exclusively.”

Over at Facebook, conservatives aren’t having an easy time either. A report done by Western Journalism concluded, “conservative websites saw a significant drop in traffic from Facebook following the algorithm change, while comparable liberal sources saw a slight increase.”

Liberty Nation emphasizes that they have been sounding the alarm on Sleeping Giants for a long time now. Last year, they “called out the organization for using deception to push companies to remove their advertising, and also took issue with the fact that the campaign purports to oppose bigotry, but would not take on organizations that espouse anti-white racism.”

Many people agree now is the time for conservatives to fight fire with fire. By applying the same technique, conservatives can pressure companies not to advertise in liberal outlets. If advertisers were to start boycotting CNN, Huffington Post or the New York Times, it probably wouldn’t take long before the pendulum starts to swing back the other way.

Conservatives, Liberty Nation declares, “can oppose these efforts by exposing them to the rest of the public. Most people aren’t aware of the lengths to which the left goes to eliminated dissent. Right-leaning Americans should use every means at their disposal to inform others of these stories. It is not likely that the majority of Americans would approve of the use of such tactics.”