(Natural News) A new Netflix comedy, “Sticks and Stones” by Dave Chappelle, just received an unprecedented zero percent rating from the experts at Rotten Tomatoes because the comedian dared critique leftist ideology in a humorous way. The funniest part is that the five “professional critics” who reviewed the show desperately wanted no one to turn it on. That’s why the stand up set received an extremely rare 0 percent rating from the ‘professionals.’
Rotten Tomatoes reviews are rigged by elite leftists
Ironically, Rotten Tomatoes advertises itself as, “The leading online aggregator of movie and TV show reviews from critics.” Rotten Tomatoes supposedly “provides fans with a comprehensive guide to what’s Fresh – and what’s Rotten – in theaters and at home.” Their “Tomatometer score” is “based on the opinions of hundreds of film and television critics [and] is a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans.”
Instead of enlisting the opinion of “hundreds of critics,” the review was limited to the biased opinion of five elite leftists, who were so offended by the comedy that they collectively gave the segment a zero rating. Funnily enough, when Rotten Tomatoes unveiled audience ratings for the show, it got a rare 99 percent audience score! The public, undeterred by elitist manipulation, gave the show the highest of ratings.
“The high audience rating was the cumulative score from at least 3,753 casual reviewers who praised the comedian for daring to broach controversial topics that most comic stars have avoided in the era of ‘cancel culture.’” Rotten Tomatoes is, in and of itself, rotten to the core.
Google search results are rigged by elite leftists and the pharmaceutical industry
Dr. Robert Epstein, a free thinker who studies Big Tech’s political bias, conducted a study on Google’s manipulation of voters. He found manipulation on a massive scale in the last Presidential election.
In 2018, 87.3 percent of all web searches in the United States took place through Google. The masses, looking for objective information, get very little perspective at all. In fact, when someone “googles” something, they are getting rigged results, a deception that can manipulate people to believe and vote a specific way.
Dr. Epstein has found that search rankings manipulate undecided voters to vote for a political candidate that is favored in search rankings. He calls the effects the “Search Engine Manipulation Effect.” He testifies, “(B)iased search rankings exercise undue influence over voter’s opinions – influence that cannot be counteracted by individual candidates but that can easily determine who will win a close election.”
Dr. Epstein conducted a study that monitored a diverse group of American voters and their politically-oriented searchers. Among 13,000 searches and 98,000 web pages, Dr. Epstein found dramatic bias that favored Hillary Clinton, an effect that shifted 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes to the candidate. Even though the elite leftists at Google helped the ailing candidate amass extra votes, they did not account for the strategy of the opposing candidate — Donald Trump — who won the Electoral College through a robust ground game in areas most decimated by leftist policies.
Google wields significant influence over people’s minds because of crony protections granted to them by the revolving door of the government. “Section 230 of the (1996) Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate ‘forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.’
As explained by RedState, “This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.”
It turns out that Google is not a “platform” for “true diversity of political discourse.” They have become a publisher — a very biased, leftist publisher that censors dissent. Therefore, they should no longer be granted this special kind of immunity from section 230. Freedom of speech should be restored across all Big Tech platforms.