Tag Archives: Facebook

Vicious Cycle: The Pentagon Creates Tech Giants and Then Buys their Services, by T.J. Coles

How the military-industrial-intelligence complex works. From T.J. Coles at counterpunch.org:

Photograph Source: DoD photo by Master Sgt. Ken Hammond, U.S. Air Force – Public Domain

The US Department of Defense’s bloated budget, along with CIA venture capital, helped to create tech giants, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and PayPal. The government then contracts those companies to help its military and intelligence operations. In doing so, it makes the tech giants even bigger.

In recent years, the traditional banking, energy and industrial Fortune 500 companies have been losing ground to tech giants like Apple and Facebook. But the technology on which they rely emerged from the taxpayer-funded research and development of bygone decades. The internet started as ARPANET, an invention of Honeywell-Raytheon working under a Department of Defense (DoD) contract. The same satellites that enable modern internet communications also enable US jets to bomb their enemies, as does the GPS that enables online retailers to deliver products with pinpoint accuracy. Apple’s touchscreen technology originated as a US Air Force tool. The same drones that record breath-taking video are modified versions of Reapers and Predators.

Tax-funded DoD research is the backbone of the modern, hi-tech economy. But these technologies are dual-use. The companies that many of us take for granted–including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and PayPal–are connected indirectly and sometimes very directly to the US military-intelligence complex.

Continue reading


Silicon Valley Giants Collaborate With The US Government On Venezuela, by Caitlin Johnstone

The tech giants have become just another arm of the Deep State. From Caitlin Johnstone at medium.com:

Whenever you speak out on a public forum against internet censorship, like the recent Instagram/Facebook banning of Louis Farrakhan, Infowars, and several right-wing pundits, you always offend two major political groups. The first group are the power-serving authoritarians who identify with the left side of the political spectrum; they argue that it’s good and right to trust Silicon Valley plutocrats to regulate political speech on giant monopolistic platforms. The second group are the capitalism cheerleaders who believe there’s a free market solution to every problem; they argue that these Silicon Valley giants are private companies which are completely separate from the government, so it’s not accurate to refer to what they do with their own property as censorship.

Is that really true, though? Is it really accurate to claim that these sprawling corporations that nobody’s been able to compete with are simply private companies, separate and distinct from the government of the nation they’re based in? If you look at their behavior, it certainly doesn’t seem like it.

The US government is working to topple the government of Venezuela and replace it with a puppet regime. On the off chance that you were still in denial of this self-evident fact, check out this April 24th fact sheet on the website for the US embassy in Brazil which openly boasts about the way economic and diplomatic pressures are being deliberately placed on the Venezuelan government to install Washington puppet Juan Guaido to the nation’s leadership. Trump’s National Security Advisor has blatantly threatened that the US will starve the families of Venezuelan military officers if they don’t overthrow their government, right there on Twitter.

Continue reading→


Complicity, by Eric Peters

You don’t have to be on Facebook. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

Government, that supposedly necessary evil, is very hard to get rid of. You’re allowed to vote for the lesser of two evils. Never allowed to vote for no evil at all.

But it would be very easy to get rid of some unnecessary evils – among them Facebook.

We can’t vote Mark Zuckerberg out of an office he was never elected to – one he is trying very hard to assume – that of Decider of our thoughts… should we dare to express them… by making us afraid toexpress them.

However, we can decide we don’t “like” him – or his digital authoritarianism – and stop using the mechanism by which he was acquired so much power over us. It’s the most powerful form of voting there is – and at least for now, we have this franchise and would be fools not to use it while there is still time.

We are in a position analogous to the moment which existed beforethe 16th Amendment – or the passage of the equally odious “Patriot” Act. Better positioned, because this time, our fate is directly in our own hands.

We can get rid of Facebook – or at least, put it in its proper place.

If only we will act . . .

It is hard to avoid dealing with Facebook, certainly.

The thing has weirdly and probably not coincidentally penetrated almost every nook and cranny of our lives. It is interesting to speculate how it came to be that so many modern transactions demand – though they still lack the power to require – “signing up” on Facebook in order to proceed. Even dating apps try to make you “sign in” via Facebook, though they are separate businesses and have no other connection with Facebook.

Continue reading

Dangerous People, by Eric Peters

The first question to ask is to which people are dangerous people dangerous? In most instance its to the government and its toadies. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

You’ve likely been following the suppression of speech by the big tech companies and may have noticed collusion – the real thing, unlike the asserted thing directed at the Orange Man.

The suppression is coordinated and even deploys the same verbiage against its targets. For example, Paul Joseph Watson has just been deleted from Gesichterbuch and labeled – here it comes – “dangerous.”

Just as I have been.

It’s unlikely this is coincidental.

And as in my case, what makes Paul “dangerous,” exactly, is never specified. That would enable him to at least respond, to defend himself and – what cannot be allowed – refute the charge.

Instead, a vague blanket indictment. Which is purposefully intended to be impossible to directly challenge.

The Jews are Our Misfortune.

Anyone remember that one?

It amounts to the same thing, in principle. People anathematized for no specific reason but just because they’re not liked.

Continue reading→

Day of the Long Knives. by Raheem Kassam

Facebook continues its war on conservative and liberty movement voices, throwing in Louis Farrakhan for what are probably reasons of optics. From Raheem Kassam at humanevents.com:

Right wingers have been unceremoniously banned from Facebook. Now what?

Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer and Milo Yiannopoulos have been unpersonned by the digital tech giant Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram. They’re coming for you, next. Or more likely, for us.

Human Events stands shoulder-to-shoulder with those being routinely targeted by the would-be ‘Masters of the Universe’, no matter if we agree with them or not.

Also banned was Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the repugnant Nation of Islam group. But Farrakhan, like the others, should not have his fate decided by some little nerd in Silicon Valley who has decided his or her feelings are hurt. His fate should be decided in the court of public opinion, with sunlight acting as the greatest disinfectant.

Unfortunately, recent precedent has informed Big Tech that its methods to some extent work.

The removal of people like Laura Loomer, Milo, and Tommy Robinson has directly impacted their livelihoods, their work, and their fundamental freedoms.

Continue reading→


3 Reasons Why Facebook’s Zuckerberg Wants More Government Regulation, by Ryan McMaken

Business people love regulation when they can use it to their advantage. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants more government regulation of social media. In a March 30 op-ed for The Washington Post, Zuckerberg trots out the innocent-sounding pablum we’ve come to expect from him:

I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators. By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what’s best about it — the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things — while also protecting society from broader harms.

But what sort of regulation will this be? Specifically, Zuckerberg concludes “we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.”

He wants more countries to adopt versions of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Needless to say, anyone hearing such words from Zuckerberg should immediately assume this newfound support for regulation is calculated to help Facebook financially. After all, this is a man who lied repeatedly to his customers (and Congress) about who can access users’ personal data, and how it will be used. He’s a man who once referred to Facebook users as “Dumb F-cks.” Facebook lied to customers (not to be confused with the users) about the success of Facebook’s video platform. The idea that Zuckerberg now voluntarily wants to sacrifice some of his own power and money for humanitarian purposes is, at best, highly doubtful. (Although politicians like Mark Warner seem to take it at face value.)

Continue reading

Facebook Reverses Zero Hedge Ban, Says It Made A “Mistake”, by Tyler Durden

Facebook, probably pushed by a social media eruption, has reinstated Zero Hedge. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

It has been a strange 24 hours.

On Monday, we first learned that for the previous two days, Facebook had banned all Zero Hedge content across its various mediums, as it went against Facebook’s “Community Standards” (which to the best of our knowledge, neither we not anyone else has any idea what they are), a decision which – as we noted yesterday – surprised us for two reasons: not only do we not have an official Facebook account, but Facebook did not approach us even once with a warning or even notification.

While we were in the dark about what had triggered Facebook, or what was the company’s motive, we were humbled and delighted not only with the media coverage this event received, but far more so with the outpouring of support we received from readers and across social media, where Zero Hedge had not been yet banned, like Twitter, where figures from various industries and across the political spectrum voiced support and came to our defense, with many condemning what we felt was an arbitrary decision.

Continue reading→