Tag: censorship

Fascism 2.0 – The changing face of social media censorship

Facebook make only about £34 a year from the average customer in the UK – a little under £3 a month (and that’s before costs) so clearly there is no head-room or motivation, for a human level of customer service or attention. The user is not the customer; rather, they are the product whose data is sold to advertisers.

Thus, users do not have a direct customer relationship with the platform. The network is not directly incentivised to “care” about the user before the advertiser. And no matter where you lie on the spectrum between “free speech absolutism” and “private entities have the right to censor any user”, with such low margins it is inevitable machine processing will have to be used to moderate posts and deal with the customer interface.

But it is a fact the customer processing and management capabilities Social Networks are now evolving is being utilised in a variety of ways beyond just moderation. And it is also true this automated processing is being done at scale and is now applied to every post every member makes. 68% of US voters are on Facebook. In the UK it’s 66% and France 73.2%. The figures are similar for every democratic nation in the West. So it is vitally important the applied rules should be politically neutral.

The power that exists within the ability to machine-process every users posts is far deeper and more profound than perhaps many realise. And while it can’t directly dictate what users write in their messages it has the capacity to fundamentally shape which messages gain traction.

Social Media services have become de-facto town squares and most would agree their corporate owners should avoid ever putting a hand on the scales and influencing politics.

Additionally as everyone who uses Facebook is aware, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics, the system will qualify an individual’s reach; sometimes to an extreme degree. Or that user will simply be banned for a period of time, or banned from the network entirely.

So we can ask the question, since the social media corporations have so much censorship power, how do we know they aren’t engaging in unethical political interference? Can they be trusted with the responsibility?

I will return to this question, but it’s clear that trust in these corporations is deeply misplaced.

Keep reading

Farage and Musk don’t care about free speech. And Israel really is a terrorist state

In the space of just one week there has been a massive, almost Orwellian crackdown on free speech, with a number of arrests made. Not in North Korea or China but in the USA and UK. Barely days after former UN weapons inspector and social media tsar Scott Ritter had his house raided by FBI officers looking for evidence that he was actually working for America’s enemies we witnessed the arrest and detention of a young British journalist called Richard Medhurst who, when arriving at Heathrow airport from overseas, was escorted off a plane and held on terrorism charges. And then remarkably, Elon Musk, a billionaire who owns X and claims to be a champion of free speech shuts down the account of Egyptian comedian Bassem Youssef – which is followed by rumours on social media that the next polemic commentator to get the chop will be the YouTube talk show hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

What’s going on? What do these individuals all have in common? Clearly their uncompromised stance against Israel is the issue here and we have to assume that either the Zionist State has cracked the whip and wants this baptism of criticism and scorn to stop or the initiative comes exclusively from the deep state itself in the U.S., with London ever grateful to play the role of diminutive pooch in the handbag. But the crackdown is unprecedented and really bears witness to a fear many in the west have had for some time, which is that most of these countries are parodies of democracy. Some even go further and claim, like Youssef, that western countries’ governments are controlled by Israel. Far-fetched? Less so, given the arrests and cancels in recent days.

Yet if it is all about making the accusations against Israel more round-edged, one has to ask the questions whether the decision was wise or foolhardy and taken at what level?

The genocide Israel carries out can’t be covered up or extinguished by the history books, even if those tomes are written by the victors, as Churchill once said.

Britain and the U.S. are complicit in it and will have to face the consequences for it one day. Both the ICJ and the ICC tribunals in the Netherlands are collecting evidence on a daily basis leaving many stunned by the rank desperation and stupidity of this Kristallnacht stunt both by the deep state and by Elon Musk.

The three guilty were commentators and journalists who are hell-bent on saying or reporting the truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be. We can assume in the case of the young journalist Medhurst that instructions to scare him with the Heathrow stunt were probably instructions from Langley which UK cops happily obliged to execute.

Keep reading

X Draws the Line in Brazil, Shuts Down Local Operations Amid Censorship Clash

As part of a dramatic escalation of conflict between private sector principles and local judiciary mandates, X announced the immediate cessation of its operations in Brazil this Saturday. The company attributed its decision to direct threats against its legal team by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who issued secret orders demanding compliance with censorship directives.

According to a statement from X, Justice de Moraes threatened to arrest their legal representative in Brazil unless the platform adhered to these orders. The company disclosed this information publicly, sharing the secretive order to highlight what it perceives as an abuse of power. “Last night, Alexandre de Moraes threatened our legal representative in Brazil with arrest if we do not comply with his censorship orders. He did so in a secret order, which we share here to expose his actions,” the statement read.

Keep reading

How to Defeat the Censorship Industrial Complex

One of my colleagues, a medical doctor, that I often “tour” with on what many refer to as the “freedom” circuit, texted me a meme a while ago that I just love. Well, to be honest, I actually despise it because of what it symbolizes, which is the tremendous struggles we’ve endured the past four and a half years to get our voices heard by the masses. But part of me likes the meme because it completely embodies what life was like in 2020 for those of us who were speaking out almost from the moment the government said, “Lockdown! Just for 2 weeks to flatten the curve.” 

Whilst my doctor (MD and PhD), academic, and economist colleagues were trying to warn people about the negative medical, mental, and economic consequences of locking down perfectly healthy people throughout the world for months on end, personally, I was shouting from the rooftops peering through my legal lens saying, “The government cannot do this, folks! Wake up!” But nobody was listening to me back then. Nobody was listening to any of us. And we didn’t know one another at that point. Nor did we know how to find one another, or even if each other existed at all! The censorship was so thick, you could cut it with a knife. (I’m not exactly sure that thickness has lessened any these past few years. It’s disputable, indeed, but that’s a story for another day).

Once my bold, vocal colleagues and I finally found each other through the fog of censorship, we shared our eerily similar stories about how mainstream media was boycotting us, our work and our “against the narrative” public speeches, and how Big Tech was silencing each and every one of us online. Facebook was sending us “warnings” for posting “misinformation” (whatever that means, because of course I challenged them constantly and asked who they thought they were to determine what was truth and what wasn’t – they responded to none of my challenges, since they clearly had no leg to stand on).

Then there was their blatantly obvious shadowbanning us to the point where I’d post something and they’d only let 14 people see it. In the early days, I had a YouTube channel, but they tore down my videos within an hour or two of posting, and they threw me in YouTube jail so many times, I lost count. Some of my colleagues had tens of thousands of YouTube or Twitter followers, and then poof! One day they lost them all because the overlords cancelled their accounts.

Keep reading

Google in the Hot Seat as Trump Assassination Attempt Sparks Congressional Showdown

One of the most jarring developments (and that’s saying something) this US campaign season so far has been the assassination attempt on former President Trump, now a candidate for the country’s highest office.

But even worse, it soon became clear that the focus was being quickly shifted from this major event; Trump supporters suspected this was not an organic lack of interest from voters, but Big Tech censorship. However, if these allegations are found to be true, the whole thing could easily be treated as an actual conspiracy.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

And so, both the House and the Senate are launching investigations.

The Congress Republicans want to know – did Google and Meta, the most powerful message- and narrative-controlling online entities, deliberately suppress news stories about the assassination attempt? And why?

Google’s response to Senator Roger Marshall’s letter effectively asking these questions has left him seeing no option other than to have Google execs IMMEDIATELY (the capitalization in senator) subpoenaed by the Senate Homeland Committee.

They will be asked to expound on what exactly was meant when they tried to (“bizarrely,” Marshall stated) justify the attempt as a “hypothetical act of political violence” – because “Google systems” were supposedly programmed to do that long before Trump narrowly escaped death.

Keep reading

Letitia James Demands Big Tech Curb Election “Misinformation”

New York Attorney General Letitia James has been actively campaigning for stricter controls on AI and social media platforms, invoking concerns about “misinformation.”

James has a history of social media censorship demands that have faced allegations of First Amendment violations.

ABC News reports that James has contacted key players in the AI industry, such as Google, Meta, and OpenAI, through a letter, urging them to implement mechanisms that could restrict what she defines as misleading and deceptive speech related to elections.

“While misinformation has been a concern in past elections, with the rise of gen AI, barriers that prevent bad actors from creating deceptive or misleading content have weakened dramatically,” said the letter, sent to social media and AI companies, including Google, Meta, and OpenAI.

Keep reading

Senate Passes Kids’ “Safety” Bills Despite Privacy, Digital ID, and Censorship Concerns

Two bills combined – the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) – have passed in the US Senate in a 91-3 vote, and will now be considered by the House.

Criticism of the bills focuses mainly on the likelihood that, if and when they become law, they will help expand online digital ID verification, as well as around issues like censorship (removal and blocking of content).

Related: The 2024 Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda

The effort to make KOSA and COPA 2.0 happen was spearheaded by a parent group that was pushing lawmakers and tech companies’ executives to move in this direction, and their main demand was to enact new rules that would prevent cyberbullying and other harms.

And now the main sponsors, senators Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, and Republican Marsha Blackburn are trying to dispel these concerns, suggesting these are not “speech bills” and do not (directly) impose age verification.

Further defending the bills, they say that the legislation does not mandate that internet platforms start collecting even more user data, and reject the notion it is invasive of people’s privacy.

But the problem is that although technically true, this interpretation of the bills’ impact is ultimately incorrect, as some of their provisions do encourage censorship, facilitate the introduction of digital ID for age verification, and leave the door open for mass collection of online users’ data – under specific circumstances – and end ending anonymity online.

The bills are hailed by supporters as “landmark” legislation that is the first to focus on protecting children on the internet in the last 20 years, with some lawmakers in the Senate, like majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, describing the result of the vote as “a momentous day.”

Keep reading

Zuckerberg’s Meta Censors US Paralympian in Bid to ‘Foster a Safe Community’

When will Meta pull the plug on someone representing the United States at the Paralympic Games in Paris, which start later this month?

When their sport uses a gun, of course.

According to a Wall Street Journal report late last month, McKenna Geer, a member of the U.S. team, will be competing in the air rifle event. However, last month, she said she was censored for posting about shooting-related things. Which, as you know, people who shoot for sport are known to do.

Geer, 28, has a condition known as amyoplasia arthrogryposis, which affects the muscles. You’d think that Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta — which runs Facebook and Instagram among its social media holdings — would read the room in terms of shadow-banning her. You’d be wrong.

“Earlier this month, Ms. Geer shared a photo on Instagram of the air rifle she used to qualify for the Paralympic Games,” the Journal reported on July 24.

“The company flagged the photo as out of line with its guidelines and informed her that nonfollowers wouldn’t be able to view her account or content in Instagram’s search, explore suggested users or similar features.”

The company’s explanation?

“Our Recommendations Guidelines help to promote content that fosters a safe community on Instagram,” it said.

Geer, who apparently knew this was a possibility, took to Instagram on July 17 to write about Meta’s decision.

“I have always feared the day the media would censor my sport and speech just because I use firearms,” she wrote. “That day has finally come.”

Keep reading

Starmer’s Push to Police “Fake News” Sparks Major Censorship Concerns

Under proposals currently being considered, the Labour Party, led by the new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, plans to compel tech companies to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms. These measures, initiated in response to recent riots, have sparked controversy over potential infringements on free speech.

Keir Starmer, addressing these concerns last Friday, indicated that the government would reassess social media regulations to deter future disturbances. The Telegraph has reported that part of this reevaluation involves imposing obligations on social media entities to curb “legal but harmful” content. This would obligate platforms to limit or remove content spreading false information about various sensitive subjects, including asylum seekers and self-harm, irrespective of its legality.

Critics, however, have voiced apprehensions that these measures could suppress free expression. They argue that this demonstrates a more authoritarian inclination within Sir Keir’s Labour Party, potentially undermining foundational free speech principles by extensively policing speech that does not necessarily violate laws.

The discord has also touched upon interactions between the Prime Minister and Elon Musk, owner of X, especially regarding the handling of the riots. This proposed regulatory push would likely be incorporated into a broader review of the Online Safety Act enacted last year.

Originally, the Act included provisions to address “legal but harmful” content but was amended due to free speech concerns, eliminating such clauses after pushback. Critics had worried that these provisions might enable future governments to censor contentious viewpoints.

Keep reading

Judges Back Meta in Vaccine “Misinformation” Battle, Free Speech Advocates Vow to Fight On

The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled this week in favor of Meta, Facebook’s parent company. The case was brought forward by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) over allegations that the social media giant violated free speech rights.

The lawsuit, initiated in August 2020 and later updated in December, claimed that Facebook, along with its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and two fact-checking entities, Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact site, was complicit in an unconstitutional act of privately exercising governmental censorship. CHD alleges that Facebook, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal institutions, is censoring content and discussions that the government is barred from suppressing under the First Amendment.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The plaintiff specifically accused these sides of working in tandem to unfairly stifle valid attempts to discuss vaccine safety on Facebook, often through indirect yet sensorial measures like the use of warning labels. According to CHD, this type of arrangement between public entities and private corporations represents a breach of the First Amendment due to its perceived status as “state action.”

Keep reading