John Matze, the founder and CEO of free speech social network Parler, says that Apple has given him an ultimatum — ban “offensive” content off Parler or the Parler app will be banned from the App Store. Matze says he refused and now Apple is preventing Parler from updating its app.
Matze gave an update on the situation in a Parler post.
Investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released hidden camera videos showing a Google executive explaining how preventing Trump and similar leaders is at the top of the monolithic corporation’s list of priorities.
“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that,” said Jen Gennai, who works as Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation.
Project Veritas notes that Gennai is in charge of the division of Google that is responsible for implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. This includes making sure that political outcomes unfavorable for liberals cannot be reached.
“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again,” Gennai added.
“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?” she asked.
Gennai is proud of her organization’s push for thought control, and the “Machine Learning Fairness” guidelines that have been introduced following Donald Trump’s presidential victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
“The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it,” Gennai said.
So, as long as the Left can control your opinion, they will let you make legitimate inquiries.
Is this any way to conduct a free society that depends on continual education?
How did Google become the internet’s censor and master manipulator, blocking access to millions of websites?
In a 22 June 2019 US News article, this stalwartly left-leaning branch of mainstream media informs us of Google’s tendency to block information (instead of providing it, as most would expect of a major search engine).
Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.
The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.
If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.
Because I respect good reporting at mainstream media outlets when I do see it, I have to praise their enumeration of the nine blacklists created and used by Google. You really need to look at it.
Nonetheless, after you look at the nine ways Google daily blocks us from news, maps, and other information, you should watch the grilling Senator Ted Cruz gave to the Google representative. Hopefully, his passion will be translated into a law or hearings that will see the breakup of the social media giants.
Like Hitler’s Brownshirts, leftists often revert to attacks
Eight instances of intolerant Trump haters harassing high-profile conservatives
Secret Service took a Chicago restaurant employee into custody Tuesday evening after she spit on President Trump’s son, Eric Trump. However, that is far from the first time a radical leftist has lashed out at a prominent Trump-associated figure.
There has been a rash of instances of the “tolerant” left lashing out and mistreating Trump’s immediate family, members of his administration, and those merely associated by ideology.
The Justice Department is gearing up for an antitrust investigation of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, a move that could present a major new layer of regulatory scrutiny for the search giant, according to people familiar with the matter.
The department’s antitrust division in recent weeks has been laying the groundwork for the probe, the people said. The Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust authority with the department, previously conducted a broad investigation of Google but closed it in 2013 without taking action.
President Trump’s State Department will soon mandate that all foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a visa provide their social media accounts to screen out national security threats.
In the Trump administration’s latest immigration directive, the State Department will begin mandating that foreign nationals seeking any visa to the U.S. — including all nonimmigrant, employment, student, tourist, and business visas — disclose their social media accounts if they are on social media.
Should a visa applicant claim that they do not have social media accounts when in fact they do, a State Department official said they would become eligible for a permanent visa ban to the U.S.
The agency’s initiative to increase screening measures of the more than 1.2 million legal immigrants that are admitted to the country every year is part of an executive order signed by the president in 2017, with a senior White House official calling the new rule a “critical step forward in establishing enhanced vetting of foreign nationals.”
“As we’ve seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for terrorist sentiment and activity,” the senior official told Breitbart News. “This will be a vital tool to screen out terrorists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on U.S. soil.”
The lack of mandatory social media disclosure for foreign nationals seeking visas to the U.S. first came to the forefront following the December 2015 Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, when two terrorists murdered 14 people.
One of the terrorists, Tashfeen Malik, was able to enter the U.S. as a legal immigrant through the K-1 visa after State Department officials failed in three background checks to catch the Pakistani national’s social media posts in which she gushed over jihad.
Already, the Trump administration’s travel ban from eight countries that sponsor terrorism has been effective in ending nearly all legal immigration to the U.S. from those regions.
If AT&T had grown too big for the marketplace in 1984 (and it only controlled networks of landlines and newly-developed cell phones), then how can anyone justify the gargantuan reach of Google, Facebook, and Twitter? Since each of these social media giants (especially Google with its YouTube division) controls major swaths of the electronic discourse of the free (and not free – since they have dealings in China) world.
Additionally, in an era when we have seen these social media giants cooperating with the Obama administration to violate American’s rights against unlawful search and seizure (remember Mr. Snowden and Obama’s NSA scandal), my recent reading has indicated that the social media giants have shown an unwillingness to work with the Trump administration in finding foreign threats to national security. They need to recognize that American rights afforded by the American Constitution need to be protected by American companies — maybe smaller American companies that will appreciate the freedoms afforded them.
This is the moment the U.S. technology superpowers surely knew was coming: The U.S. government is preparing to crawl all over Google to figure out whether it is an abusive monopolist. Google parent company Alphabet Inc. and the other tech giants should be quaking in their fleece vests.
Bloomberg News and other news organizations reported late Friday that the U.S. Department of Justice is preparing to open an investigation into Google’s compliance with antitrust laws. If it goes forward, an investigation will no doubt be broad, lengthy, messy, and impossible for Google and its investors to predict.
That should terrify Google and every other big technology company — because there’s no guarantee that the antitrust Klieg light will turn on one company alone.
This isn’t Google’s first antitrust rodeo. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2013 closed without further action its own antitrust investigation into whether Google wielded its dominant web search engine like a cudgel to disadvantage rivals, drive up prices for advertisers and ultimately harm consumers. (Google did agree to some voluntary changes.)
And in recent years, the European Union antitrust watchdog imposed billions of dollars in fines after finding antitrust violations, including over how Google conducted business with its Android smartphone software and its internet shopping service. In the U.S. and elsewhere, politicians from all party stripes have sought to attack Google or other tech giants for various perceived sins, including being too big for the good of industry and consumers. Being Google has meant dealing with perennial regulatory and political nightmares.
It is difficult to show a violation of U.S. antitrust law, legal experts said.
It is not enough for regulators to establish that a company has monopoly power. They must also show anticompetitive conduct – an abuse of that dominant position aimed at bypassing fair competition.
“You can get a monopoly just by being a good competitor and that’s fine,” said Chris Sagers, a professor of antitrust law at Cleveland State University.
Under current precedent, the Department of Justice and the FTC also need to show that consumers are being harmed, something that in recent decades has typically been measured by whether prices are going up and innovation is slowing.
What can the U.S. government do if investigators find an antitrust violation?
The FTC and Justice Department can both file civil lawsuits in federal court and ask judges to order changes to a company’s business model.
The Justice Department can also bring criminal antitrust cases, but those prosecutions usually relate to cartels and price-fixing, making charges against big technology firms unlikely.
Although these writers at Reuters would have us believe that the government is too inbred with those they should be overseeing to faithfully do their job, I don’t think that I fully buy it. If we can light a fire under a conservative or more in the Senate, I think that break-up of the media giants might put the fear of God (or at least the fear of the people) in some of these companies.
Why the Tide is Changing Against Social Media
Here’s The Eye-Popping Amount Of Cash Google, Amazon, And Facebook Dumped On DC Lobbyists In 2018
Google, Amazon and Facebook plowed a record amount of money into Washington, D.C., a year before congressional Democrats announced a wide-ranging antitrust investigation into the Silicon Valley giants.
They dumped a combined $48 million into lobbying in 2018, up 13% from 2017, government disclosures from January show. House Democrats announced a planned probe of Google and Facebook’s business practices Monday, nearly a year after the companies made their contributions.
Google was the biggest spender in 2018, increasing its lobbying contributions 18% to $21.2 million. Facebook’s spending amount grew nearly 10% to $12.6 million. All three companies spent the bulk of their lobbying on in-house lobbying crews. The efforts largely went toward market and data regulation issues, according to the data.
Neither Facebook, Amazon, nor Google have responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about Democrats’ potential probe.
The House’s investigation comes several days after a Wall Street Journal report noted that the Department of Justice is preparing an antitrust probe against Google’s search engine and business model. It would be the first such investigation since the Federal Trade Commission conducted a probe of Google but closed it in 2013 without taking action.
When these social media companies were just start ups, they were not a problem. However, now that they seem to have decided that they should eliminate all discussion of anti-liberal ideas (that is, when conservatives, moderates, or liberals offend the sensibilities of their liberal censors, those ideas get blocked), they have become the Big Brother enemy of freedom.
Facebook argues it can’t invade your privacy because you don’t have any
One Facebook lawyer has been quoted in a 31 May 2019 article in The Daily Dot as claiming that Facebook users have surrendered their privacy rights to the company that Zuckerberg helped start.
A lawyer for Facebook argued in court Wednesday that the social media site’s users “have no expectation of privacy.”
According to Law360, Facebook attorney Orin Snyder made the comment while defending the company against a class-action lawsuit over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
“There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy,” Snyder said.
In an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out, Snyder further claimed that Facebook was nothing more than a “digital town square” where users voluntarily give up their private information.
“You have to closely guard something to have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” Snyder added.
Although Snyder said that the social media site would be focusing more on privacy in the future, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria reportedly pushed back on Facebook’s argument.
“What you are saying now sounds contrary to the message that Facebook itself disseminates about privacy,” Chhabria said, according to Law.com.
Maybe this might be something that I can incorporate into my life.
YouTube investigating conservative commentator Steven Crowder
The company also confirmed to The Hill that it was investigating in response to Maza’s thread, but declined to comment further.
Maza, the host of Vox’s media literacy series “Strikethrough,” accused Crowder on Twitter this week of “repeated, overt attacks on my sexual orientation and ethnicity.” He said that the pundit has called him “an anchor baby” and “a lispy queer.” He also said that Crowder’s videos have caused him to be the “target of ridiculous harassment,” adding that “it makes life sort of miserable.”
The Vox host told his followers to flag Crowder’s videos and said he did not believe YouTube would take a stand against the commentator. He accused the company of not caring about its LGBT creators.
I've been called an anchor baby, a lispy queer, a Mexican, etc. These videos get millions of views on YouTube. Ever… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Actually, I think the best response to Carlos Maza’s whining comes though Steven Crowder.
Steven Crowder’s response to the ordeal:
This is corporate censorship and this is yet another giant company trying to lean on this channel, your channel, and the content you’ve created. This is a war (I want to make sure that everyone understands) we will fight to the absolute bitter end both legally and publically.
So if you’ve clicked on this video, it’s the exact opposite of clickbait. The title (VOX is Trying to Ban This Channel… | Louder with Crowder), it’s pretty much what you would expect of the host of Vox.
Vox has actively (it’s been brought to my attention) been on a campaign to get this channel banned (removed from YouTube).
By encouraging viewers in massive flagging campaigns to directly communicating with YouTube in order to try and get me and these videos completely removed from the platform. A couple of th tweets read “by refusing to enforce its anti-harassment policy, YouTube is helping incredibly powerful cyberbullies … go to this dude’s videos and flag them?” (sic @gaywonk tweet).
Let me explain the real (the more sinister) context at play here. First, I’ve been accused of playing a part (or this person, Carlos Maza, has accused me in playing a part) in his in his having been doxed. I have always condemned and continue to condemn and discourage any and all forms of doxing or targeted harassemnt of anyone online. Ok. I’ve been consistent, so please don’t do that, here. I know some of you will get mad — maybe a little enraged with the information you are about to hear — but please don’t do that. Be above that.
If there’s any proof that I’ve actively encouraged people to dox this person or anyone, I will profusely apologize. Any proof.
Here’s the thing. Of the tens of millions of cumulative plays of our rebuttals to Vox on this channel, every single one of them is about criticizing their ideas or incorrect assumptions. Every instance has been about fighting bad information with better information.
Now, Carlos Maza is upset.
Ok, have I ever called you “Carlos, the gay, Latino host at Fox?” Yes, of course. But it’s friendly ribbing and you know I genuinely wouldn’t consider you being that upset about it considering your Twitter handle is “@gaywonk.”
Did I ever offhandedly use the term “lispy queer?” I really don’t remember it, but it sounds like me. Why? because you speak with a lisp and you refer to yourself as a queer. That, along with the LGBTQ moniker, has made me think that “queer” is one of the more suitable terms. If not, I don’t understand the rulebook. Please, please correct me.
Note: the following graphic came up during the video, showing screen captures from Carlos Maza’s Instagram account which use the “offensive” terms.
Also, by the way, it’s funny and this is a comedy show. “Let’s be queer” is harmless and I enjoy saying it. You’re not alone. Quarterblack Garrett, half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond. I won’t apologize for it just like I won’t apologize for the “Socialism is for Figs” shirt which thay now want to have actively removed (available at CrowderShop.com).
If using your words, taken directly from the acronym you regularly tout is not Hate Speech — no one can understand the rules. And that’s kind of the point isn’t it.
… (There is much more.)
Considering the corporate sponsorship Vox enjoys (starting with $200 million from NBC Universal) and the self-funding of the Louder with Crowder show (where they fund themselves by selling their “Mug Club”), I really can’t wait for Google, Vox, Facebook, and Twitter to be diced into bite-sized bits. I want to see Carlos Maza eat more than his fill of the bits of Alphabet.
Comedian Steven Crowder’s YouTube victory in the wake of a deplatforming campaign was short-lived due to a “continued review” by YouTube.
The social media giant, which rejected calls by Vox host Carlos Maza to terminate Mr. Crowder’s channel for alleged “harassment,” returned to the issue on Wednesday by demonetizing the channel.
“Update on our continued review — we have suspended this channel’s monetization,” YouTube wrote. “We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies.”
Fans of the conservative comedian thought he was in the clear on Tuesday after YouTube said an “in-depth review” of his channel showed zero violations of its rules.
YouTube has begun a purge of what it calls “hate” and “misinformation” from the platform, as well as a push to strip ad revenue (“demonetize”) channels that “brush up” against the platform’s increasingly draconian speech codes. The move follows a pro-censorship campaign led by Vox Media reporter Carlos Maza.
YouTube also pledged to push more “authoritative” content from “trusted” sources to users — mainstream media like NBC and CNN fall into this category.
The channels that have been demonetized include independent journalist Ford Fischer, libertarian anti-globalist news channel Press For Truth, SJW critic Sinatra_Says, and conservative comedian Steven Crowder.
The latest purge followed a relentless pro-censorship campaign led by far-left Vox Media reporter Carlos Maza, who objected to content produced by Steven Crowder. YouTube has now targeted not just Crowder, but a range of independent video creators.
“As an independent news producer, I don’t have any salary whatsoever. I live in DC and travel the country covering activism because I think it’s important — especially in this political moment — to have raw documentation of everything that goes on” said Ford Fischer, a former production assistant at Fox News. “Good, bad, or ugly, we as press have an obligation to film it as impartially as we can.”
“It’s true that the mainstream media covers many of the same issues that I do, and they never seem to encounter the same censorship” Fischer continued. “There are numerous examples, but as a simple one I’d note that Vice has embedded with neo-Nazi organizations many, many times. I’ve worked alongside them in doing so, and I’ve licensed [reports] to them about a dozen times for their coverage. Vice will probably never find itself on the chopping block.”
“The demonetization of my work on Youtube effectively cuts my bottom line livelihood in half” said Fischer.
Black conservative author and media personality Jessie Lee Peterson claimed on social media that YouTube demonetized his account after he condemned “anti-Jewish hatred by whites and Muslims.”
YouTube demonetized my channel right after taking down videos *condemning* anti-Jewish hatred by whites & Muslims!… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Twitter has suspended the account of Eoin Lenihan, a researcher who mapped out connections between mainstream journalists and the violent far-left Antifa movement on Twitter, following a mass-reporting campaign by left-wing activists.
Lenihan published the results of his research at Quillette, where he explained the twofold objective of his project — first, to discover the journalists who were most closely linked to Antifa via social media. Second, to discover if those journalists covered the extremist movement favorably or negatively.
In October 2018, my research partner and I decided to investigate the truth of this impression by using a mix of network mapping and linguistic analysis to see which prominent journalists who covered Antifa also were closely connected to leading Antifa figures on social media. We then inspected the Antifa-related stories these journalists had written.
We created a data set of 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts based on the follows of 16 verified Antifa seed accounts. Using a software tool that analyzed the number and nature of connections associated with each individual account, we winnowed the 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts down to 962 accounts. This represents a core group of Twitter users who are connected in overlapping ways to the most influential and widely followed Antifa figures. Of these 962 accounts, 22 were found to be verified—of which 15 were journalists who work regularly with national-level news outlets.
The journalists included contributors to The Guardian, The New Republic, Al Jazeera, and the Huffington Post.
Mark Zuckerberg’s personal security chief has been placed on administrative leave amid allegations that he made racist and homophobic remarks about people including the Facebook founder’s wife.
Liam Booth allegedly made the remarks about Zuckerberg’s wife, Priscilla Chan, and some of the employees at their household, Business Insider reported earlier, citing legal letters from the former household staff. A spokesman for the Zuckerberg and Chan family office said Booth has been placed on leave while an outside law firm investigates. It didn’t confirm the precise nature of the allegations published by Business Insider.
“The family office takes complaints of workplace misconduct very seriously,” the spokesman told Bloomberg News in an email. “The allegations against Liam Booth were brought to the office’s attention for the first time by the Bloom Firm after both former employees had left employment by the family office and engaged legal counsel.”
Lisa Bloom of the Bloom Firm confirmed by email that she represents “the two individuals who have raised claims.” She declined to identify the people involved or share details on the allegations.
Booth is a former Secret Service officer, according to his LinkedIn profile. He didn’t immediately reply to a message outside of U.S. business hours.
Facebook investors have called on the company’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg to step down as chairman, following reports that the company hired a public relations firm to smear its critics by drawing links to George Soros.
The attack on Mr Zuckerberg is set to complicate the daunting challenge facing Sir Nick Clegg, Facebook’s new global head of policy and communications, who joined last month and has been asked to conduct a review of Facebook’s use of lobbying firms.
Jonas Kron, a senior vice president at Trillium Asset Management, a US investor which owns an £8.5m stake in Facebook, last night called on Mr Zuckerberg to step down as board chairman in the wake of the report.
“Facebook is behaving like it’s a special snowflake,” he said. “It’s not. It is a company and companies need to have a separation of chair and CEO.”
Both Mr Zuckerberg and Sir Nick have been under pressure following reports Facebook hired Definers, a Republican public relations firm, to help repair its battered reputation following intense criticism of the social media platform’s handling of a scandal over Russian interference in the 2016 US elections and the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Nonetheless, for Facebook to hire a firm to defend George Soros seems just odd. Maybe this is an indicator that Zuckerberg will not be able to take the firm further left until he takes it off the stock market. With shareholders, he will have to stop his march to the left.
Who knows? With market forces in play, he might have to allow free speech for all. (chuckle)
Senators Chris Coons and Bob Corker warned Friday that Congress would impose new regulations to rein in Facebook Inc. unless the social-media company addresses concerns about privacy and the spread of misinformation on its platform.
Speaking in a joint interview on the sidelines of a development forum in Wilmington, Delaware, the two senators said that Facebook probably wouldn’t like what Congress does, so it should come up with a solution first.
Chris CoonsPhotographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
“If they don’t, if they continue to act as if we couldn’t possibly deign to regulate them, they’ll get regulated and they’ll be unpleasantly surprised with how swiftly it may happen,” said Coons, a Delaware Democrat and member Senate Judiciary Committee. “I think they’ve got a lot of explaining to do.”
When Democrats like Cicilline and liberal globalists like Soros support regulating social media giants, conservatives have to look out for censorship to increase to Big Brother levels. Instead of pushing regulation, maybe conservatives should look toward to a guarantee of the Bill of Rights. Further, we should look toward breaking up the monopolies of social media.
I wish the senators would focus less on the spread of misinformation. Rather, I would have them focus on the full acceptance of free speech (for all parties — not just the liberals).
Since I can judge which news pieces seem viable, maybe they should focus on ensuring all get heard. That is, since I have a habit of verifying news through good sources (e.g., the Wall Street Journal, National Review, or Breitbart), they can make certain that even the gossip publishers can publish. Therefore, in a pinch, we might even accept a story from the New York Times (if corroborating sources exist).
“The same big tech companies that are wary of being regulated by the U.S. government in order to protect free speech, will gladly volunteer to be regulated by foreign governments so that they can restrict free speech.” https://t.co/ElxDJrDt6g
Expect some Facebook (FB) users to dial back their use of the popular social network and even delete their accounts following the publication of a damning exposé this week.
On Wednesday, The New York Times published an extensive feature that revealed how Facebook management was reluctant to tackle Russia-linked activity on the social network following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, how unprepared Facebook was for the ensuing public fallout, as well the social network’s efforts to wield influence on Capitol Hill. Chief among Facebook’s alleged infractions: employing Definers Public Affairs, a Republican opposition research firm, to accuse left-wing financier George Soros of quietly backing anti-Facebook groups.
“It’s too early to tell the full impact The New York Times story is having — we would have to see in a month — but it will impact [Facebook’s] Daily Active Users and even just the people who are concerned about occasionally logging on and giving clicks and views to a company they might disagree with,” says Altimeter Group analyst Omar Akhtar, who adds the report severely tarnished Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s once-sterling reputation.
As for myself, I have had it with Facebook and don’t use it as a primary means of sharing news. However, I can understand their anger and would suggest use of another platform (such as gab.ai (twitter alternative), vidme (youtube alternative), WordPress (blogger alternative), or Digg (Facebook alternative)).
Twitter has followed in Facebook’s footsteps by blocking a campaign video ad for Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng. Facebook eventually admitted that a campaign video including the communist atrocities in Cambodia is not “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational,” but Twitter, which describes the ad as “obscene,” disagrees.
Shortly after Facebook came under fire for refusing to allow Republican Congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng to advertise with her campaign ad on their platform, Twitter has made the same decision. Facebook blocked the ad, which shared the story of Heng’s family being forced to flee Cambodia for the U.S., claiming that the Facebook couldn’t allow videos that contained “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational” imagery on their advertising platform. The ad was eventually approved with a Facebook spokesperson stating: “Upon further review, it is clear the video contains historical imagery relevant to the candidate’s story. We have since approved the ad and it is now running on Facebook.” A decision Twitter apparently disagrees with.
Twitter has blacklisted the campaign ad, according to Heng. The Heng campaign stated in a press release: “In recent attempts to advertise Elizabeth Heng’s campaign video on Twitter, the campaign has received a message from the company stating that upon review, the ad is ‘ineligible to participate in the Twitter Ads program at this time based on our Inappropriate Content policy.’ Twitter defined inappropriate content as ‘that which is offensive, vulgar, or obscene.’”
Did Twitter find the images of Pol Pot’s Cambodia offensive, vulgar, or obscene? That is, did the brutality of a communist regime offend the millennial sensibilities of Twitter? Or was it scenes of Fresno’s deteriorating storefronts that offended Twitter?
If it was the images of the results of economic radicals like Pol Pot, will Twitter, Google, or Facebook block video of Patriot’s Day?
Really, @Twitter? For an organization whose founder claimed y’all were “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” you’re doing a really lousy job of supporting free speech.https://t.co/qrQtMzVJ5B
A 4 August 2018 Associated Press article points out how Facebook has admitted to vote meddling (however, it does not mention the removal of conservative Brazilian pages or similar actions by Facebook).
For a company bent on making the world more open, Facebook has long been secretive about the details of how it runs its social network — particularly how things go wrong and what it does about them.
Yet on Tuesday, Facebook rushed forward to alert Congress and the public that it had recently detected a small but “sophisticated” case of possible Russian election manipulation. Has the social network finally acknowledged the need to keep the world informed about the big problems it’s grappling with, rather than doing so only when dragged kicking and screaming to the podium?
While the unprompted revelation does signal a new, albeit tightly controlled openness for the company, there is still plenty that Facebook isn’t saying. Many experts remain unconvinced that this is a true culture change and not mere window dressing.
“This is all calculated very carefully,” said Timothy Carone, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame. He and other analysts noted that Facebook announced its discovery of 32 accounts and pages intended to stir up U.S. political discord just a week after the company’s stock dropped almost 20 percent — its worst plunge since going public.
But Facebook’s proactive disclosure, including a conference call for reporters with chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, struck a markedly different tone from the company’s ham-handed approach to a string of scandals and setbacks over the past two years. That has included:
CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s infamous dismissal of the idea that fake news on Facebook could have influenced the 2016 election as “a pretty crazy idea”;
The company’s foot-dragging as evidence mounted of a 2016 Russian election-interference effort conducted on Facebook and other social-media sites;
Zuckerberg, again, declining for nearly a week to publicly address the privacy furor over a Trump campaign consultant, Cambridge Analytica, that scavenged data from tens of millions of Facebook users for its own election-influence efforts.
A chastened Facebook has since taken steps toward transparency, many of them easy to overlook. In April, it published for the first time the detailed guidelines its moderators use to police unacceptable material. It has provided additional, if partial, explanations of how it collects user data and what it does with it. And it has forced disclosure of the funding and audience targeting of political advertisements, which it now also archives for public scrutiny.
Facebook said its timing was motivated by an upcoming protest event in Washington that was promoted by a suspicious page connected to a Russian troll farm, the Internet Research Agency. Several people connected to the IRA have been indicted by the U.S. special counsel for attempting to interfere in the 2016 election.
Despite Zuckerberg’s repeated mantra — delivered to relentless effect in some 10 hours of testimony before Congress in April — that the company now really gets it, some who know the company best have their doubts.
David Kirkpatrick, the author a Facebook history, argues that neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg have ever shown themselves to be “deeply alarmed in public.” As a result, he suggests, Facebook seems more concerned with managing its image than with solving the actual problem at hand.
Such issues run deep for the company. Some of its biggest critics, including former employees such as Sandy Parakilas and early Facebook investor Roger McNamee, say the company needs to revamp its business model from the ground up to see any meaningful change.
These critics would like to see Facebook rely less on tracking its users in order to sell targeted advertising, and to cut back on addicting features such as endless notifications that keep drawing people back in. Parakilas, for example, has advocated for a subscription-based model, letting users pay to user Facebook instead of having their data harvested.
Merely hiring more moderators, or hanging hopes on the evolution of artificial intelligence, isn’t going to cut it, in their view. There have also been widespread calls for Facebook to acknowledge that it is, in a sense, a media company, responsible for what happens on its platforms — a characterization the social network has long fought.
For all that, Facebook is well ahead of Silicon Valley rivals such as Google and Twitter when it comes to openness — even if only because it’s attracted the lion’s share of criticism, said Paul Levinson, a media studies professor at Fordham University.
But Facebook “can’t win at this game,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a University of Virginia professor of media studies whose 2018 book “Antisocial Media” critiques Facebook’s effect on democracy and society. Because it’s so huge — 2.2 billion global users and counting — and so difficult to police, he said, “it will always be vulnerable to hijacking and will never completely clean up its content.”
This is not big news. So what if Facebook caves again to the socialist forces that would limit free speech. This allows the media giant to feel good about itself. Too bad Facebook could not learn from the lessons provided by Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, and George Orwell.
Then again, there was the example of Barack Obama.
#ForaFacebook The Facebook is interfering in our elections and internal matters of Brazil! You are the socialist scum that is destroying the world! @facebook Bunch of assholes: don't interfere in our country!
Facebook Removes Conservative Site Infowars — But Terrorist Filth by Fatah, FARC, Al-Muwahideen and Al-Awlaki Still Litters the Platform https://t.co/KLATmBLjSR FB is Democrat controlled! Propaganda to sway elections, they are breaking anti-trust laws.
Twitter takes a stab at silencing the “shitty people”
In the following undercover video, the interviewer got Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety, to admit that “we’re trying to get the ‘shitty people’ not to show up.”
What initially appeared to be soft censorship, accomplished little by little and mostly under wraps, has become outright censorship of political opponents. Like we caught Twitter saying on camera, “we’re trying to get the ‘shitty people’ not to show up.”https://t.co/cICHN66JmTpic.twitter.com/D6BQkhgqr4
Spotify, Apple, Google, and Facebook purge the free speech rights of Alex Jones of InfoWars
In the insightful fiction from the middle of the last century (1984 by George Orwell), the author saw the deleterious effect of a central government that controlled everything down to speech and thought. That insight came from exposure to governments that attempted to provide everything to the working class — down to what we should think.
Even with these cautionary tales, a number of media giants (Spotify, Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook) have taken up the task of limiting the free speech rights of others.
So we’re now trusting the capitalist class, massive, unaccountable corporations, to decide on our behalf what we may listen to and talk about? This is the take-home message, the terrible take-home message, of the expulsion of Alex Jones’ Infowars network from Apple, Facebook and Spotify and of the wild whoops of delight that this summary banning generated among so-called liberals: that people are now okay with allowing global capitalism to govern the public sphere and to decree what is sayable and what is unsayable. Corporate censorship, liberals’ new favourite thing – how bizarre.
We live in strange times. On one hand it is fashionable to hate capitalism these days. No middle-class home is complete without a Naomi Klein tome; making memes of Marx is every twentysomething Corbynistas’ favourite pastime. But on the other hand we seem content to trust Silicon Valley, the new frontier in corporate power, to make moral judgements about what kind of content people should be able to see online. Radicals and liberals declared themselves ‘very glad’ that these business elites enforced censorship against Jones and Infowars. We should be ‘celebrating the move’, said Vox, because ‘it represents a crucial step forward in the fight against fake news’. Liberals for capitalist censorship! The world just got that bit odder, and less free.
Over the past 24 hours, Jones and much of his Infowars channel has been ‘summarily banned’ – in the excitable words of Vox – from Apple, Facebook, Spotify and YouTube. Initially, Facebook and YouTube had taken only selective measures against Jones. In response to a Twitterstorm about his presence on these platforms, they took down some of his videos. But then Apple decided to ban Jones entirely – removing all episodes of his podcast from its platform – and the other online giants followed suit. Or as the thrilled liberal commentary put it: ‘The dominoes started to fall.’ Despite having millions of subscribers, despite there being a public interest in what he has to say, Jones has been cast out of the world of social media, which is essentially the public square of the 21st century, on the basis that what he says is wicked.
This is censorship. There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship.
The Real Reason for the Left’s Double Standard on Hate Speech
Having used the ideas of Dr. Brown as much as they aligned with my own, I again find myself dipping from the well of Dr. Michael Brown’s thought (which often appears in OneNewsNow and TownHall) in his 9 August 2018 article on the left’s propensity to excuse its own hate speech.
Why is it that organizations like the SPLC can designate conservative Christians as hate groups while ignoring radical leftists like Antifa? Why is that Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter appear to punish conservatives disproportionately for alleged violations of community guidelines?
The answer is as disturbing as it is simple. The left believes it is so morally and intellectually superior to the right that it can see nothing wrong with its extreme positions and hostile words. Is it wrong to be intolerant of bigots? Is it wrong to hate (or even punch) a Nazi?
In short, if I’m a member of the KKK, is it wrong for you to disparage and mock me? If I’m a dangerous homophobe, is it wrong for you to vilify and exclude me? If I’m a hate-filled propogandist spreading dangerous lies, is it wrong for you to mark me and marginalize me?
Of course, there are double standards on all sides of the debate, on the right as well as on the left. And there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around, from the most progressive to the most conservative.
All of us also have our share of blind spots, so we tend to condemn in others what we justify in ourselves. Welcome to human nature. Still, it is conspicuous that the same behavior gets treated differently by the leftist elite (including many a university professor) and by watchdog groups like the SPLC and by the internet giants.
Back in 2004-05, when I first began to address gay activism, I was widely mocked for saying, “Those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet.”
The response was consistent: “No one wants to put you in the closet!”
A few years back, I noticed a change in tone: “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”
But of course!
While being interviewed on a Christian TV program back in 2011, I quoted the comment of a Christian attorney. He told me that those who were once put in jail (speaking of pioneer gay activists) will want to put us in jail. For having the audacity to say this on Christian TV, I was vilified and maligned.
Yet when Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing a court order to grant same-sex marriage licenses, there was widespread rejoicing on the left: “Kim Davis is ISIS! Lock her up!”
On the one-year anniversary of the deadly Charlottesville protests, white supremacists and radical leftists known as Antifa descended on the Virginia town once more to commit more violence. Late Saturday night, NBC News reporter Cal Perry and his crew were in the thick of it as Antifa members ganged up on them and attacked. The next morning, NBC’s Sunday Today ignored the attack and suggested the media was simply “heckled” by their assaulters.
On Twitter, Perry was documenting the protesters as they marched through the streets of college town when they started to get “very aggressive with the media” and trying to block their camera shots. “Yeah. We’re getting a lot of this. Protesters trying to grab our camera,” he responded to one Twitter commenter telling him to “f**k off national media vulture.”
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js Things got super-heated when one Antifa protestor shouted “F**k you, snitch a** news b**ch. F**k you” and tried to either pull the camera away from the person using it or knock it to the ground. It was unclear in the video.
Despite the video evidence on the ground from their own reporter, NBC went to Garrett Haake, who was at the White House in anticipation of violence there as another white supremacist rally was set to be held. “Overnight, tense moments in the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, strong far left protesters heckling the media and chanting anti-police slogans,” he suggested at the top of his report. They actually used footage Perry and his crew shot but didn’t show anything from their attack.
The assault on NBC’s reporter came almost a year since their political director, Chuck Todd used his MSNBC program, MTP Daily to elevate Antifa’s violence as a legitimate tactic against the right. He even doubled down and allowed them to use the formerly prestigious Meet the Press as a platform to push their hate and violent methods. Todd has never condemned them.
Todd appeared on Sunday Today and had nothing to say about the attack or Antifa, which had been declared a domestic terrorism group by the State of New Jersey before he had them on last year. Instead of condemning Antifa, he lambasted the President for criticizing anthem protesters and targeted his supporters as racists.
“So I don’t think, if the President is, quote, ‘learned anything’ I think in his mind, he has seen this is an effective political strategy to keep his base, his base,” he declared about what the President had learned since last year’s violence. “That it is the president’s continuation of using to be generous, dog whistles, others say they’re not silent. You can hear the whistles pretty loudly.”
It’s sad and disturbing that NBC would choose to ignore violent leftists assaulting their own employees in exchange for railing against President Trump’s voters, but this appears to be the world we live in now. The assault also came after the entire liberal media had been trying to convince the public that Trump supporters where violent ones reporters had to watch out for.
Recently Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes have been banned from various social media platforms, in a desperate attempt by the Left to ensure that the 2016 election results aren’t repeated in 2018. Some people say it doesn’t matter that these men were deplatformed, because they don’t like what they say, and what’s more, these are all private companies. They are indeed private companies, but they have a virtual monopoly today over the means of communication, and once they start banning people because they don’t like what they say, they’ve set a precedent that is inimical to the survival of a free society.
If only approved viewpoints can be aired, we live in a totalitarian state, not a free society, and the effects of this will reverberate in our lives in ways we cannot imagine. If you think that the banning will stop when those who are deemed “crazy” or “extremist” are all banned, you’re in for a surprise.
Yesterday, they came for me, albeit in not yet as thoroughgoing a manner as the way they went after Jones and McInnes.
So Robert Spencer’s reporting on Islamization is “hate,” while Sarah Jeong’s extended history of vile, racist comments about white people is not. One gets banned from Mastercard and Patreon, the other joins the New York Times editorial board.
An in-depth analysis of Facebook’s publicized algorithm change has revealed that the social media giant is drastically reducing users’ news feeds to conservative outlet websites – while boosting those of liberal publishers.
[C]onservative publishers have lost an average of nearly 14 percent of their traffic from Facebook, [while] liberal publishers have gained about 2 percent more web traffic from Facebook than they were getting prior to the algorithm changes implemented in early February,” researchers from The Western Journal divulged. “This algorithm change has, in effect, censored conservative viewpoints on the largest social media platform in the world – [a] change that in the short-term, [is] causing conservative publishers to downsize or fold up completely, and in the long-term, could swing elections in the United States and around the world toward liberal politicians and policies.”
For those of us who have felt the hand of shadow banning, this comes as no surprise.
Facebook bans Cambridge Analytica for doing for Trump what others did for Obama
Along the same lines, a 16 March 2018 article at CNBC affords those on the left to bemoan the way Facebook aided Trump’s victory (although Obama openly took data from Facebook during his campaigns):
Facebook has suspended Cambridge Analytica, a political data analytics firm that worked on Facebook ads for President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, saying that it lied about deleting user data sent to it by the makers of a popular psychology test app.
In a blog post that went up late Friday night, Facebook explained that a University of Cambridge psychology professor, Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, created an app called “thisisyourdigitallife,” which asked users to answer questions to build a psychological profile.
According to the social network, Kogan “lied” to Facebook by passing that data along to Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) and Cambridge Analytica — an SCL affiliate — without informing users.
The net effect allowed the firm to turn innocuous page “likes” and other Facebook user data into information that was mined for political use.
“In so doing, [users] gave their consent for Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked, as well as more limited information about friends who had their privacy settings set to allow it,” Facebook said.
Facebook Scandal: mainstream media 🤐 : Obama campaign’s Carol Davidsen admits Facebook Sided with Obama in 2012 to help him win❗️ “Democrats sucked out the entire social network of the US”😳 kept the data & still have it❗️ Where is the investigation of Obama & Democrats❓ pic.twitter.com/4JcLUutnBj
Facebook is facing the possibility of an advertiser exodus in the U.K. over the data scandal that has enveloped the company, prompted widespread demands for new regulations and knocked almost $50 billion from its market cap.
ISBA, a group representing about 3,000 advertisers including major brands like Unilever and Procter & Gamble, is demanding answers from Facebook in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica data-mining scandal. The companies the group works with could abandon the social network if their concerns aren’t addressed.
The trade group confirmed to Fox News that it will meet with representatives from Facebook on Friday.
“We want to understand the scope of the inquiry Mark Zuckerberg announced yesterday. We want reassurances for our members that it will get to the bottom of the issues and any implications for the public and for advertisers,” Phil Smith, ISBA director general, told Fox News in a statement.
Although that this likely comes as the response of liberal executives at companies founded by conservatives, I fully support them in their ability to determine where they (and their hires) spend their money. Take that, Zuck.
After the Austin bomber is killed, Facebook scrubs his page
Local news outlets use his mother’s Facebook feed to get photos
Despite the fact that Facebook almost immediately took down the page posted by the Austin bomber (thereby depriving the local media of a source of a photo of the bomber), local and then national media outlets used photos posted by the mother of the Austin bomber.
The sad thing about the photos they captured from the mother’s Facebook feed was that, though they took pains to mask the names of those who corresponded with the mother, they took no effort to hide her name. She had done no wrong and had not been accused of any crime.
Of course, you could point out that I am also putting her name out for public ridicule. However, the 100 to 1,000 that regularly view my blog do not hold a candle to the readership numbers of the Austin American Statesman and other papers that link to it.
Did Facebook’s data giveaway to Obama in 2008 and 2012 break federal law?
Another accusation has surfaced that Facebook was playing fast and loose with user data, and this time it can’t blame an outside political operative or rogue third-party app.
Barack Obama changed the way American politicians campaign with his pervasive use of social media and data collection in 2008 and 2012.
It now appears a lot of that data was given to the campaign, perhaps illegally.
The latest breach was revealed in a pair of Tweets from Carol Davidson, the media director for the Obama 2012 campaign.
“Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph,” she wrote, “but they … were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
Hans von Spakovski of The Heritage Foundation says the problem with Facebook providing that data is that corporations are banned by law from making contributions, including in-kind donations, to federal campaigns.
“It’s very possible that the Obama campaign violated campaign finance law by accepting, illegally, a corporate contribution,” the attorney warns, “and Facebook may have violated the law by making an illegal contribution.”
The only problem with even pointing this out is that we live in Jeff Session’s America (or, rather, AG Rosenstein’s America). Just as Hillary, Rosenstein, Comey, and McCabe will never have to answer for crimes that sent Kristian Saucier to prison — this breaking of campaign finance laws by Obama will never see the inside of a courtroom.
Facebook, Google, & Twitter take extreme measures to fight leakers
One day last year, John Evans (not his real name) received a message from his manager at Facebook telling him he was in line for a promotion. When they met the following day, she led him down a hallway praising his performance. However, when she opened the door to a meeting room, he came face to face with members of Facebook’s secretive “rat-catching” team, led by the company’s head of investigations, Sonya Ahuja.
The interrogation was a technicality; they already knew he was guilty of leaking some innocuous information to the press. They had records of a screenshot he’d taken, links he had clicked or hovered over, and they strongly indicated they had accessed chats between him and the journalist, dating back to before he joined the company.
“It’s horrifying how much they know,” he told the Guardian, on the condition of anonymity. “You go into Facebook and it has this warm, fuzzy feeling of ‘we’re changing the world’ and ‘we care about things’. But you get on their bad side and all of a sudden you are face to face with [Facebook CEO] Mark Zuckerberg’s secret police.”
The public image of Silicon Valley’s tech giants is all colourful bicycles, ping-pong tables, beanbags and free food, but behind the cartoonish facade is a ruthless code of secrecy. They rely on a combination of Kool-Aid, digital and physical surveillance, legal threats and restricted stock units to prevent and detect intellectual property theft and other criminal activity. However, those same tools are also used to catch employees and contractors who talk publicly, even if it’s about their working conditions, misconduct or cultural challenges within the company.
Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company’s internal version of Facebook.
The Internet showed such great promise more than two decades ago when Matt Drudge shook up the media world, followed quickly by WND’s entry as the first independent online news-gathering organization – and, later, an independent book publishing arm and an independent film-production company.
There was no Google, at least not as the domineering search engine with an eye to becoming an out-of-control, invasive corporate version of the National Security Agency that would know everything about you, tracking your every move, on and offline – and monetizing it. It was not yet controlling the means of distribution of information, nor had it yet placed the left-wing extremist Southern Poverty Law Center in a position to censor the news – and even define what news is.
There was no Facebook yet, the other corporate giant that would come alongside Google to grab control of 75 percent of the online ad revenue so together they could starve out independent voices, most of whom had not yet emerged.
It’s a different world today, and it’s a dangerous one in which this Digital Cartel is – without oversight, without checks and balances, without restraint – literally the powerful gatekeeper that is killing personal privacy and free speech.
Matt Drudge saw it coming. I regret to say I did not.
Here’s what he said in 2015: “Don’t get into this false sense that you are an individual when you’re on Facebook. No, you’re not! You’re a pawn in their scheme. …”
He warned back then how online revenue would be weaponized by Google. He warned how Facebook would control and sell you as product. He warned that Americans were becoming confined on the Internet into the “playgrounds” of massive corporations.
“This is ghetto,” he said. “This is corporate. They are taking your energy and you get nothing in return! I’m just warning this country. …”
Matt Drudge saw it coming. Again, I can only admit, with regret and remorse, I did not. Many others did not, either.
So, here we are in 2018. We’ve fallen for Digital Cartel’s trap. They’ve taken our privacy and our freedom. We must fight back – and fight we will.
The independent media is in crisis with falling revenues, controlled by this cartel. We are faced with falling or static traffic that is controlled by this beast. And if the independent media fail, so will free-spirited individual voices of independence. That’s the crisis we face today.
How do we respond?
We need to respond collectively and individually as if we are in a new war of independence, a new fight for liberty, a new battle for the mind, heart and soul of America.
It’s not yet been a year, and Facebook has already decided to throw out its new key feature designed to combat fake news.
The social network announced it’s scrapping its “disputed” label for flagging questionable stories because the feature ended up reinforcing “deeply held beliefs,” rather than making users look with a skeptical eye. Instead, Facebook will start adding related articles next to links.
“Related Articles, by contrast, are simply designed to give more context, which our research has shown is a more effective way to help people get to the facts,” the company said in its blog post this week on the decision. “Indeed, we’ve found that when we show Related Articles next to a false news story, it leads to fewer shares than when the Disputed Flag is shown.”
Facebook said “academic research” showed putting a disputed tag did little to disabuse readers, which is something Yale professor David Rand told TheWrap about months ago. Rand said the initiative put in place by FB back in March, after Russia used the platform to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election, was “not really effective,” according to a university study.
The professor pointed to two reasons for this: The impact of flagging was “pretty small,” with a 3.7 percent decrease in “perceived accuracy” for articles with the disputed label. The second indicated a backfiring of sorts from the labeling process, where articles without the disputed tag are, by virtue, assumed to be true — even if they’re false.
“We call this the ‘implied truth effect,’” said Rand. “Because if you tag some stories, some people will assume all of the untagged stories — rather than being stories that haven’t been checked yet — they will assume they’re stories that have been checked and verified.”
So, in other words, they were told it would not work, they tried their Big-Brotheresque, liberal-favoring program long enough that it not only failed, but failed spectacularly. Then they announced the end of the program.
The only way it could be worse would be where Facebook were declared to fall under governmental protection and thereby become a federal program.
On January 1, the Geller Report brought you the news that Facebook had shut down the “Warriors for Christ” in its ongoing effort to choke off and silence all voices that dissent from the leftist line.
The Warriors for Christ page was subsequently reinstated. After that, they had done little more than post the Geller Report link and other links to stories about how Facebook had shut them down — and Facebook blocked their page again. Evidently now writing about Facebook censorship is grounds for being censored on Facebook.
I received this message from one of the Warriors for Christ admins:
We literally shared your article, articles by Joe Newby, we did 2 live streams (last night was a live prayer service-they removed that video with no explanation). Today we created an even to promote Carla D’Addesi streaming tomorrow and now the page is gone. Not just unpublished but deleted. No way of appealing nothing. We have a back up page (facebook.com/wfcchurch.org) but we only have 5,100 followers on that page. Our main page had over 225,000 and was growing even more rapidly since these articles came out.
As I said before, remember Pastor Niemoller’s famous poem:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.
Just as God worked through Nebuchadnezzar’s life, atheist Pamela Gellar has proven herself as a strong ally of Christians seeking online equity.
Facebook shuts down “Warriors for Christ” page: They’re coming on Facebook for the Jews, for the Christians, for all the defenders of freedom. They’re coming for the warriors for Christ. They’re not coming for the warriors for Allah. https://t.co/13qOX2k1NCpic.twitter.com/BhF1BIgJb5
I’m sure Islam is permitted. An ideology that tortures dogs, abuse women behead infidels, Jews, Christians and toss Homosexuals off buildings. A new form of FB needs to be designed that supports the 1st amendment and that it’s not anti-God/Jesus https://t.co/8psv7mUE7x
After years of censoring Christians online, the big three Internet technology giants – Google, Facebook and Twitter – are now being targeted by the Internet Freedom Watch initiative to give believers their online voice back.
The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) launched the initiative via the InternetFreedomWatch.org website, where numerous cases are documented, such as former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s (R-Ark.) Facebook post in 2012 supporting Chick-fil-A’s pro-family stance regarding same-sex “marriage” and Twitter’s removal of an ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who stands for biblical morality on a number of hot-button issues.
Let the censorship end
NRB announced that the free speech effort is being endorsed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, as the campaign focuses on exposing the censorship of Christians on the Internet by social media search engine giant Google, as well as the popular social media channels Facebook and Twitter.
NRB President and CEO Jerry A. Johnson stresses that his organization was founded back in 1944 to fight corporate censorship of evangelical radio ministries at the time – something that continues to plague America more than seven decades later.
“[NRB is focusing on] those who desire to expunge opposing viewpoints from the marketplace of ideas by recklessly using nebulous terms like ‘hate speech,’” Johnson told those attending a press conference held last week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., according to WND.
“Free speech is under assault in America – especially for those who espouse Christian and conservative viewpoints,” @DrJerryJohnson told those gathered at a Washington event aimed at fighting internet censorship.https://t.co/Me2W2CmbMR
Left-leaning Bloomberg laments the problems Facebook wants to admit
In a 14 December 2017 Bloomberg article the social media giant looks at the damage it does to children’s brains (but does not seem to make plans for lessening the detrimental impact they have). Too bad Facebook also does not also consider its own censorship of conservatives, the detrimental affects brought on by those actions, and ways to fix those bad affects.
Facebook is projected to boost sales by 46 percent and double net income, but make no mistake: It had a terrible year. Despite its financial performance, the social media giant is facing a reckoning in 2018 as regulators close in on several fronts.
The main issue cuts to the core of the company itself: Rather than “building global community,” as founder Mark Zuckerberg sees Facebook’s mission, it is “ripping apart the social fabric.” Those are the words of Chamath Palihapitiya, the company’s former vice president of user growth. He doesn’t allow his kids to use Facebook because he doesn’t want them to become slaves to “short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops.”
Palihapitya’s criticism echoes that of Facebook’s first president, Sean Parker: “It literally changes your relationship with society, with each other … God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”
Facebook has reacted nervously to Palihapitya’s accusations, saying he hadn’t worked at the company for a long time (he left in 2011) and wasn’t aware of Facebook’s recent initiatives. But I can’t see any practical manifestations of these efforts as a user who has drastically cut back on social networking this year for the very reasons cited by Parker and Palihapitya.
A wise man said, “A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?” While it is good that Facebook is seeing that constant social media use does change the brain of children and adolescents, you think that they would also wake up to the constant calls for them to stop censoring conservatives. Still, there is never anyone as blind as someone who refuses to see.
“I can pretty much guarantee it,” he says. “If you are a consumer and you want to know what’s going to happen now that Net Neutrality regulation has been taken off the book, the answer is probably nothing for the short-term. Your Internet experience is not going to change dramatically; probably not at all, in fact. It’ll more or less be the same, at least for the time being.”
In the longer run, Radia says consumers may see changes that are beneficial, perhaps even some arrangements involving ISPs and content companies like Netflix that Radia says could mean lower bills for Internet users.
“[I think] that’s … a little longer on the horizon maybe in a few years, rather than in the immediate term, [but] there is nothing to worry about right now,” he continues. “Your ability to binge-watch over the holidays is not going to be affected by the FCC decision, no matter what you hear from left-wing activists and certain companies that have a self-interest in not having to pay for any of this infrastructure.”
During the last of my tenure at the Johnson Space Center, I experienced the Y2K hype. Except for election cycles where the Democrat was in serious likelihood of being beaten, the Y2K only marginally beats out the Net Neutrality on the big, bad, hype-o-meter (and that assumes that NN doesn’t drag on for over a year).