Tag Archives: Social Media

Censorship Is What Happens When Powerful People Get Scared, by Michael Krieger

Powerful people have good reason to be scared. They’ve screwed up a great country and people have figured it out. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

“Only the weak hit the fly with a hammer.”

– Bangambiki Habyarimana

Anyone who tells you the recent escalation of censorship by U.S. tech giants is merely a reflection of private companies making independent decisions is either lying or dangerously ignorant.

In the case of Facebook, the road from pseudo-platform to willing and enthusiastic tool of establishment power players is fairly straightforward. It really got going earlier this year when issues surrounding egregious privacy violations in the case of Cambridge Analytica (stuff that had been going on for years) could finally be linked to the Trump campaign.  It was at this point that powerful and nefarious forces spotted an opportunity to leverage the company’s gigantic influence in distributing news and opinion for their own ends. Rather than hold executives to account and break up the company, the choice was made to commandeer and weaponize the platform. This is where we stand today.

Let’s not whitewash history though. These tech companies have been compliant, out of control government snitches for a long time. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we’re aware of the deep and longstanding cooperation between these lackeys and U.S. intelligence agencies in the realm of mass surveillance. As such, the most recent transformation of these companies into full fledged information gatekeepers should be seen in its proper context; merely as a dangerous continuation and expansion of an already entrenched reality.

But it’s all out in the open now. Facebook isn’t even hiding the fact that it’s outsourcing much of its “fake news” analysis to the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by NATO, Gulf States and defense contractors. As reported by Reuters:

Facebook began looking for outside help amid criticism for failing to rein in Russian propaganda ahead of the 2016 presidential elections…

With scores of its own cybersecurity professionals and $40 billion in annual revenue in 2017, Facebook might not seem in need of outside help.

It doesn’t need outside help, it needs political cover, which is the real driver behind this.

To continue reading: Censorship Is What Happens When Powerful People Get Scared

Advertisements

The Game is Rigged, by Ben Garrison

The object of the game is getting clearer all the time: silence voices discordant from the mainstream narrative. From Ben Garrison at grrrgraphics.com:

In early America many cities had ‘town squares’ in which citizens could stand on soapboxes and shout out various messages. Our First Amendment protects such speech.

The Internet is today’s town square. The soapboxes are social media.

The Deep State and the left are intertwined with Silicon Valley. The CIA helped Google and Facebook get started. Why? To make it easier to spy on people. Over time, millions gravitated toward Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Conservative and Libertarian voices became very strong and that alarmed the Deep State. So they began demonetizing conservatives. Then they shadow-banned them. Now they are deleting them outright.

For many years, Alex Jones reached millions with his journalism and rants. His tirades helped wake people up. He yelled at us about the Deep State, including the corrupt security agencies, the Bohemian Grove, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, fluoride in our water, the lies about 9-11, and yes, even Sandy Hook. The latter had many anomalies that should be questioned. Alex brought all of this up and more before anyone else had a inkling about what was really going on with such matters. He was routinely dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by the establishment. However, much of what he has been saying over the years is now acknowledged as self-evident. The legacy media, the Deep State, and Silicon Valley could not stomach the fact that he was informing and influencing minds and elections. They all got together and confiscated his soapbox. Their lame excuse? They claimed he was a purveyor of ‘hate speech.’

To continue reading: The Game is Rigged

The Real Victim of Social Media Censorship is Personal Responsibility, by Brittany Hunter

Banning certain views from social media sites prevents people from either thinking for themselves about those views or debunking them. From Brittany Hunter at fee.org:

Between Trump’s tirades against alleged “fake news” outlets and the recent banning of Alex Jones from Facebook, Apple, and YouTube, our society appears to be obsessed with trying to silence the opposition by controlling the flow of information. And while the recent Jones prohibition has sparked a national debate over who the First Amendment applies to, there is more to this story than just the issue of state-protected free speech.

To be sure, the Bill of Rights is vital to individual liberty and was written explicitly to restrain the government from infringing upon the rights of the people. And while Facebook may sometimes be more accommodating to the government than many of us would like, the fact remains that it is a private company and it has the right to ban whomever it chooses. The same goes for YouTube and Apple.

And while we are each free to disagree with the decision to censor certain users, debating the constitutionality of Facebook and Apple’s decision ignores the real heart of the matter: Facebook, CNN, Apple, YouTube, and Fox News are not responsible for the spread of misinformation, no matter how much believing so may reinforce our own narratives. When all is said and done, the only person responsible for distinguishing fact from fiction is the individual.

When I was a child and used to accompany my mother to the grocery store, I would always stare in wonder at the sensational tabloid magazines that sat near the registers. “Saddam Hussein is Really a Woman,” one headline read. Another claimed to have an exclusive interview with a man with four heads while another had the scoop on the exorcism of a demonic cat. Even as a child, I understood these headlines were false, but I was still confused.

“Why are these magazines allowed to tell lies? Shouldn’t this be illegal?” I asked my mother. “What if someone believes them?”

“Some people do believe them,” she said as she told me about her friend from school who never missed an issue of World Daily News. She continued, “But each person is responsible for making that decision for themselves.”

To continue reading: The Real Victim of Social Media Censorship is Personal Responsibility

Alex Jones Purge: US Tech Giants Meddle into 2018 Midterm Elections, by Peter Korzun

Banning conservatives from popular social media platforms meddles with the 2018 elections much more than anything the Russians are likely to do. From Peter Korzun at strategic-culture.org:

An all-out battle is raging against alternative views in the country that has positioned itself as the champion of the freedom of speech despite the fact that 90% of its media are controlled by just 6 companies. For comparison, in 1983, 90% of US media were controlled by 50 companies. Naturally, the trend negatively affects press freedom. According to the 2018 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders or RSF, the US dropped two positions compared to 2017, sliding to No. 45 overall. The role of competition has diminished while bias has become a norm. According to the 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation Survey on Trust, Media and Democracy report, only 44 percent Americans say they can identify a news source that they believe reports the news objectively.

There have been many examples of freedom of speech trampled on in the United States. True, the First Amendment bars Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” but it says nothing about big high-tech companies or social networks banning political commentators out of favor with the “establishment”. And that’s what they did.

Major tech giants – Facebook, Apple, Google, YouTube, Pinterest, iTunes, LinkedIn, Podcast add, MailChimp, YouPorn, and Spotify – have banned Alex Jones, a well-known journalist, and his website InfoWars – from their services for spreading around “wrong stories”, which the platforms’ owners found “hateful”. The move is unprecedented, it’s a real bombshell. It should be noted that it was President Donald Trump who praised Mr. Jones for his “amazing” reputation.

The privately owned companies with their own rules and regulations teamed up against Mr. Jones and did it simultaneously to leave no doubt the ban is nothing else but collusion. The giants are engaged in political censorship, using their market dominance to target dissenters. Alex Jones is the same investigative journalist he has been for many years. What makes them crack down on him now? Probably, they had their fill as he had irritated them disproportionately.

To continue reading: Alex Jones Purge: US Tech Giants Meddle into 2018 Midterm Elections

Silencing Alex . . . For Openers, by Eric Peters

Alex Jones was banned in a coordinated action by several of the social media platforms. This post was originally posted three days ago, but technical difficulties prevented it from being posted correctly. Here’s the second try, from Eric Peters at theburningplatform:

The other day, YouTube and Facebook and several other inter-related social media platforms banned Alex Jones – the founder of Prison Planet and InfoWars. The reason given isn’t that Alex is a “conspiracy” theorist – the ancient charge – but chiefly that he is a purveyor of “hate” speech.

What this really means is that the powers that be hate the things Alex speaks about – his political incorrectness – and can no longer abide his being free to speak about such things.

Having locked down colleges, the workplace and most other places, the very last place where it is still possible to openly express non-orthodox views – and to hear and read them – is online.

And now that is to be locked down, too.

The powers-that-be are almost literally chewing the carpet over the success of politically incorrect alternative media. They cannot stand it that people aren’t listening to them – and instead are listening to such as Alex and anyone else who does not parrot the party line.

The Internet opened up a level playing field. Made it possible to end-run the curatorship of the powers-that-be over the dissemination and analysis of information to a mass audience. One no longer needed to have the budget of The New York Times or CNN to compete with both of them.

Which has been driving the curators to Bunker Scene paroxysms of rage.

Since it’s not yet formally illegal to voice – and publish – contrarian views (which are often simply correct views which deviate from politically correct orthodox views; for example, raising questions about the government’s official explanation for the symmetric, almost free-fall collapse of WTC 7 on 911) the method used to silence these views was first to “demonetize” those who voiced and published them.

To continue reading: Silencing Alex . . . For Openers

Is Democratic Senator Mark Warner the Mastermind Behind Move to Further Weaponize U.S. Tech Giants? by Michael

While the social media companies are ostensibly private companies, they are in bed with the government, so call their moves against Alex Jones and other people they don’t like censorship once removed. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. Because legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has givenwealthy Americans the ability to control the US government’s policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no effective influence whatsoever, the US unquestionably has a corporatist system of government. Large, influential corporations are inseparable from the state, so their use of censorship is inseparable from state censorship.

This is especially true of the vast megacorporations of Silicon Valley, whose extensive ties to US intelligence agencies are well-documented. Once you’re assisting with the construction of the US military’s drone program, receiving grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance, or having your site’s content regulated by NATO’s propaganda arm, you don’t get to pretend you’re a private, independent corporation that is separate from government power. It is possible in the current system to have a normal business worth a few million dollars, but if you want to get to billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where money translates directly to political power, you need to work with existing power structures like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else they’ll work with your competitors instead of you.

– From the Caitlin Johnstone post: In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship

Let’s be clear about something up front because it’s extremely important. This narrative that three tech giants, Apple, Google and Facebook all decided independently and simultaneously to de-platform Alex Jones without any threats or pressure from U.S. politicians and other powerful forces behind the scenes is pure fantasy. This isn’t private companies doing that private company thing, this is Silicon Valley oligarchs making a decision to appease politicians and the status quo system which made them billionaires in order to avoid regulation.

To continue reading: Is Democratic Senator Mark Warner the Mastermind Behind Move to Further Weaponize U.S. Tech Giants?

Assange, Infowars and the Constitution, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

Legally, the social media companies that have banned Alex Jones are private companies and can put or not put anyone they want on their platforms. Julian Assange is being persecuted by governments for revealing truth, which makes his plight several orders of magnitude more severe than Jones’. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

This morning I woke up, looked around me, and saw a world sinking into a quagmire of voluntary censorship, a world willing to let someone far away choose what it can and cannot see of itself, and about itself. A world that no longer appears to recognize, or care, that this goes directly against its founding principles of liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.

I can think of many reasons why someone would want to ban Infowars and Alex Jones, and I don’t even know them other than from incidental tweets and comments. But I also acknowledge that that is not the point. Just because you would like to ban a person or organization, just because you don’t agree with them, doesn’t mean you can, or should be able to.

And if Facebook, Google, Apple, Spotify and Pinterest -all within hours of each other-, think it’s a good idea to ban Jones regardless, they had better do a lot better than saying something about violating their ‘community standards’. They should identify specific instances where these alleged violations take place, and identify them publicly.

You can’t ban anyone on vague ‘standards’ from media that cover half the planet. Because that’s a danger to the entire planet, and to all of mankind. As Facebook and Google are very busy lobbying Washington, Brussels et al to drop any anti-trust charges against them, and let them continue to be private enterprises, they are shirking ever close to the various intelligence communities.

Politicians and secret agents alike have long recognized the potential Big Tech offers for controlling their populations. Long before those populations themselves have recognized the danger embedded in this potential. The treatment of Julian Assange and Infowars, 180º different as they are, puts all this in very sharp perspective.

How are you going to be informed, and stay informed, of what’s happening in the world, of what your government does and plans, if your media, both old and new, conspire to let you know only what they want you to, and to present a version of the world, of reality, that they invented in order to safeguard their future and that of their sponsors? Who’s going to tell you what happens behind the infinite layers of curtains?

To continue reading: Assange, Infowars and the Constitution