To begin with, Unilever is a huge transnational corporation, which is well known to donate heavily to Democrats. On Monday, the corporate Behemoth warned social media companies like Facebook and YouTube that censorship is the name of the new game, i.e. that it would stop advertising on their platforms via ads if the respective companies fail to “combat” (as in censor), let me quote: “fake news, hate speech and divisive content”.
These words are basically a leftist dog-whistle catch-phrase, which symbolizes anything regarded by the establishment to describe anything that goes against their leftist/globalist narrative. Here’s Unilever Chief Marketing Officer Keith Weed speaking at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s annual leadership meeting in Palm Desert, California:
“Unilever will not invest in platforms or environments that do not protect our children or which create division in society, and promote anger or hate. We will prioritize investing only in responsible platforms that are committed to creating a positive impact in society”
Last year, Unilever spent 9 billion dollars marketing its brands, the likes of Knorr, Lipton and Dove. Keith Weed said that consumers are very worried about “fake news” and “Russians influencing the U.S. election” and not so much about about online advertising measurement issues. To no one’s surprise, here’s Facebook’s official position:
“We fully support Unilever’s commitments and are working closely with them”
and the same goes for Twitter.
Welcome to our dystopian future, where globalist multinational mega corporations have the power to pressure other globalist multinational mega corporations to effectively implement what amounts to global mass censorship. I realize that in theory this sounds ” like a fine idea”, but if you read between the lines, especially the quote about the 2016 election, the real point is to censor all conservative points of view and allow any leftist, anti-Trump message, including name calling, character assignation or any other negative statements. The liberal mantra of “speech is free as long as we agree with it” will continue. Unilever is no different. Who in their company decides which comments are objectionable? Would be interesting to find out.