Skip to content

New App Finds Hilarious Way to Get Revenge Against NY Times on Twitter: ‘Mass Blocking’

    The New York Times is being a real pain-in-the-ass lately.

    It apparently thinks it’s the “Editor of the Interwebs,” although nobody really remembers hiring them to police their opinions. Besides, based on their horrific error-ridden, conspiracy laden reportage on issues like the Russia hoax, the Old Grey Lady has its wrinkly hands full as it is.

    It’s not worth belaboring the obvious point that the NY Times is trying to silence conservatives in an effort to turn America’s culture into a cesspool of monopolized leftist thought.

    Glenn Greenwald recently did the best takedown of these “journalistic tattletales” in his Substack, including New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz’s ill-fated cancel-culture-targeting of Silicon Valley investor Marc Andreessen for his non-existent utterage of a verboten epithet.

    Now, conservatives are fighting back, and in a hilarious way.

    Jack Posobiec points out that the New York Times is now currenly being “mass blocked” due to a fantastic new app:

    If you go to (you own the risks), like I did, then one could hypothetically block 800 NY Times reporters at once.

    My life feels cleaner, already. Who couldn’t do with more abject lies and left-wing propaganda in their lives, amirite?

    Upon closer inspection, it appears that these NYT accounts are no longer free to spread their thought-pollution on my timeline.

    NYT food section? Enough of that poison.

    NYT Obits. Dead to me.

    The reaction to the mass blocking ap’s campaign of NY Times destruction is gold.

    The great thing about this app? Totally free. It even encourages you to revoke access after you’re done mass blocking the NY Times on Twitter.

    There. Now doesn’t that feel better?

    "*" indicates required fields

    Who's your favorite former President?*
    This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

    OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.