Tag: censorship

Google Plans New Content-Scanning Censorship Tech

Earlier in the year, Google filed an application to patent new methods, systems, and media for what the giant calls “identifying videos containing objectionable content” that are uploaded to a social site or video service.

For example, YouTube – though the filing doesn’t explicitly name this platform.

The patent application, which has just been published this month, is somewhat different from other automated “methods and systems” Google and other giants, notably Microsoft, already have to power their censorship apparatus; with this one, the focus is more on how AI can be added to the mix.

More and more often, various countries are introducing censorship laws where the speed at which content is removed or accounts blocked is a major requirement made of social media companies. Google could have this in mind when the patent’s purpose is said to be to improve on detecting objectionable content quickly, “for potential removal.”

No surprise here, but what should be the key question – namely, what is considered as “objectionable content” – is less of a definition and more a list that can be further expanded, variously interpreted, etc., and the list includes such items as violence, pornography, objectionable language, animal abuse, and then the cherry on top – “and/or any other type of objectionable content.”

The filing details how Google’s new system works, and we equally unsurprisingly learn that AI here means machine learning (ML) and neural networks. This technology is supposed to mimic the human brain but comes down to a series of equations, differentiated from ordinary algorithms by “learning” about what an image (or a video in this case) is, pixel by pixel.

Keep reading

‘This Message Seems Dangerous’: Google Censors Emails, Private Groups

“It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.” — O’Brien, Officer of the Inner Party (1984, by George Orwell, Berkley/Penguin p. 225)

“We’re letting you know that we’ve permanently removed [your] content…An external report flagged the content for illegal or policy violations. As a result, our legal content and policy standards team removed the content for the following reason: unwanted content.” — Google Groups email sent to me. June 27, 2024

On the morning of June 27, the presidential debate between President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, I noticed an announcement on a Substack post that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was going to join the debate, even though CNN had excluded him based on technicalities. Powered by Elon Musk’s X, the Real Debate would be broadcast at the same time, with Kennedy giving his answers after Biden and Trump.

Despite CNN’s claim that he didn’t qualify for the presidential debate and the Democrat Party’s continual barriers to Kennedy’s name appearing on state ballots, he is running for president of the U.S. and has significant popular support.

To every normal American, it’s obvious there is a benefit to hearing from all viable candidates running for president, regardless of one’s political leanings. In that spirit, I sent out a few texts and a notice in a Google Group, with a link to the Real Debate website.

Some commentary on the debate went back and forth in the group. Thirty minutes after my first post, I received the following email from Google Groups stating that they had “permanently removed” my content because “an external report flagged the content for illegal content or policy violations.”

My post was removed “for the following reason: unwanted content,” and I was informed, “You may have the option to pursue your claims in court.”

Keep reading

Stanford insists Internet Observatory, which engaged in election-time censorship, will stay open

The status of Stanford University’s controversial Internet Observatory, a research group accused of participating in social media censorship, appears unclear after recent conflicting reports about its future.

A recent report by the tech newsletter Platformer suggested the observatory may be closing after several key staffers, including founding director Alex Stamos, left or did not have their contracts renewed.

Other news outlets reported the observatory was “collaps[ing] under pressure,” being “wound down” and “closing.” Some popular social media posts suggested it was being permanently “shut down.”

However, the university contradicted those reports in a recent statement on the observatory’s website.

“Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure,” it stated. “SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted. As a result, SIO continues to actively seek support for its research and teaching programs under new leadership.”

SIO will continue its “critical work” through the “publication of the Journal of Online Trust & Safety, the Trust & Safety Research Conference, and the Trust & Safety Teaching Consortium,” it stated.

Furthermore, the observatory’s staff will be conducting research on “misinformation” during the 2024 election, according to the statement.

Keep reading

Democrats Downplay Influence of Major Advertising Alliance’s Demonetization Blacklists

During a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, several Democrats characterized scrutiny of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) (a World Economic Forum-affiliated pro-censorship advertising alliance that blacklists brands, creators, and content from advertising if they’re deemed to violate its “brand safety” rules) as “dangerous” and a “sham.”

GARM has faced growing scrutiny over the way its practices have resulted in certain viewpoints being demonetized. Before this July 10 hearing, House Republicans released a report showing that GARM and its members had “carefully” monitored a number of conservative outlets, placed conservative media outlet The Daily Wire on an advertising exclusion list, and pushed for advertising restrictions on the popular “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast.

And the intention of this hearing was to respond to these allegations and examine “whether existing civil and criminal penalties and current antitrust law enforcement efforts are sufficient to deter anticompetitive collusion in online advertising.”

But, as has often been the case during hearings related to huge corporations and alliances targeting smaller businesses and entities, Democrats downplayed, dismissed, or outright denied the concerns that were raised.

“This hearing has nothing to do with antitrust laws, since the majority’s allegations wither under even the most basic antitrust analysis,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said during his opening statement. “This is instead another dangerous effort by the majority to bully companies into promoting and supporting far-right extremist views, views that brands understandably do…not want to be associated with. In this case, the majority seeks to undermine companies’ First Amendment rights and to make it harder for them to avoid monetizing online and offline harm through advertising.”

He continued by suggesting that those who have shone a light on GARM’s practices are engaging in a “made-up scheme,” accused Republicans of pushing a “conspiracy theory that conservative content is being censored,” and claimed that there’s “no evidence” to support allegations of wrongdoing.

Keep reading

Biden Appoints Social Media Censorship Advocate To White House Digital Strategy Team

The Biden administration reinforces its ranks with what some reports see as yet more ardent censorship advocates.

This time it’s Andy Volosky, whose “claim to fame” thus far has been to wholeheartedly support the banning of President Donald Trump by former Twitter (while Trump was still president).

Unsurprisingly, his other efforts are advocating for even stricter online censorship (“content moderation”) than what social platforms have been doing for almost a decade now.

Volosky has now been given the right to serve this administration as deputy director of platforms for the White House’s Office of Digital Strategy. Serving the people, critically minded cynics might remark, would probably require a different mindset and a different set of skills.

But depending on how long the current administration manages to hang on to power, Volosky may not be on in the new job for long.

George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley makes a note of this appointment as he explores what might turn out to be one of the nadirs in US history where freedom of expression is concerned.

Turley goes as far as to assert that President Biden is “the most anti-free speech president since John Adams.” This is a bold statement, not least because more than two centuries of “enlightenment” in many areas of politics in the US separate the two figures.

But, not when it comes to progress in the realm of free speech, according to the legal scholar. And moves like bringing Volosky in certainly do little to discredit these claims.

Keep reading

UN’s Antonio Guterres unveils global game plan for surveillance, control and censorship

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently released a framework program titled “Global Principles for Information Integrity,” which outlines key recommendations on population control, surveillance and censorship.

The said project promotes the globalist rhetoric of ending “harmful misinformation, disinformation and hate speech” online. It claims to make information spaces safer while “upholding human rights such as the freedom of speech.”

“At a time when billions of people are exposed to false narratives, distortions and lies, these principles lay out a clear path forward, firmly rooted in human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and opinion,” Guterres said, addressing the media at the UN headquarters in New York.

Guterres urged governments, tech companies, advertisers and the public relations (PR) industry to take responsibility for spreading and monetizing content that results in harm. He also demanded that the media and advertisers take control and establish official narratives while suppressing opposition.

For SHTF Plan‘s Mac Slavo, the international organization is building an information surveillance and control system that crafts authoritarian narratives that limit access to the truth. These will not only censor but will dictate and will police people on what to say and think and how to behave.

“The UN wants to create a world of simps who surrender their sovereignty and bow down to manipulative and abusive entities and false authorities,” Slavo said.

He added that Big Tech’s algorithms or automated review processes will be programmed to filter and remove content deemed objectionable or politically sensitive, including blocking websites, social media posts or entire platforms that would criticize their chosen stakeholders. Slavo further predicted possible internet shutdowns or access restrictions to specific websites in times of political unrest or during manufactured crises.

Keep reading

Censors Everywhere We Look

It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.O’Brien, Officer of the Inner Party                                                                                           
1984, by George Orwell, Berkley/Penguin p. 225 

We’re letting you know that we’ve permanently removed [your] content…An external report flagged the content for illegal or policy violations. As a result, our legal content and policy standards team removed the content for the following reason: unwanted content.Google Groups email sent to me
June 27, 2024

On the morning of the June 27, 2024, Presidential debate between Trump and Biden, I noticed an announcement on a Substack post that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr was going to join the debate, even though CNN had excluded him based on technicalities. Powered by Elon Musk’s X, the Real Debate would be broadcast at the same time, with Kennedy giving his answers after Biden and Trump.

Despite CNN’s claim that he didn’t qualify for the Presidential debate, and the Democrat Party’s continual barriers to RFK’s name appearing on state ballots, he is running for President of the United States and has significant popular support. To every normal American, it’s obvious there is a benefit to hearing from all viable candidates running for President, regardless of one’s political leanings. In that spirit, I sent out a few texts and a notice in a Google Group, with a link to The Real Debate website.

Some commentary on the debate went back and forth in the Group. Thirty minutes after my first post, I received the following email from Google Groups stating that they had “permanently removed” my content because “an external report flagged the content for illegal content or policy violations.” My post was removed “for the following reason: unwanted content,” and I was informed, “You may have the option to pursue your claims in court.”

Keep reading

Pro-Israel Group Censoring Social Media Led by Former Israeli Intelligence Officers

CyberWell, an Israeli nonprofit with deep ties to the intelligence arm of an Israeli government propaganda effort, has been influential in shaping social media content since October 7. The group, which purports to be independent, has lobbied Meta, X (formerly known as Twitter), and TikTok to remove social media posts under the banner of fighting hate and antisemitism.

The group claimed a major victory regarding Meta’s decision on Tuesday to expand its definition of antisemitic hate speech to include many criticisms of “Zionists” – those who call for an independent state in the Middle East that privileges Jews over other ethnic groups. “CyberWell intends to leverage its technological tools and analysis efforts to ensure this policy is implemented efficiently and fully, and that Meta’s moderation tools are trained to effectively bar this content,” the organization claimed in a press release.

The success is the latest string of victories to shape permissible speech when it comes to Israel and its actions.

In January, CyberWell reported that it had pushed to censor accounts that disputed the false allegation that Hamas had slaughtered dozens of babies during the October 7th attack. Any accounts disputing claims around babies killed during the attack, CyberWell argued, are akin to “content denying or distorting the Holocaust.” President Joe Biden and leading Israeli figures have falsely claimed that Hamas beheaded or burned forty babies during the assault into Israel.

That claim has been widely debunked. Despite repeated false assertions to the contrary, only one baby was killed during the Hamas assault: a 10-month-old infant named Mila Cohen, who was killed at Kibbutz Be’eri. In more recent months, CyberWell has lobbied TikTok and Meta to censor social media posts with the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” claiming that the slogan constitutes hate speech.

CyberWell is one of many agenda-driven nonprofits now censoring social media discourse, including benign or true information, under the cover of fighting hate and misinformation. The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, funded a nonprofit that worked to censor tweets critical of pandemic-related policies. The U.S. government funds several think tanks that work to moderate social media content critical of NATO’s policies impacting Ukraine.

Keep reading

Musk Announces X To Sue ‘Perpetrators And Collaborators’ Behind Advertising Censorship Cartel

Elon Musk announced on Thursday that social media platform X will sue ‘perpetrators and collaborators’ who have colluded to control online speech, as revealed on Wednesday by an interim staff report released by the House Judiciary Committee.

“Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, 𝕏 has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket,” Musk wrote on his platform, adding “Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution.”

The House report details a coordinated effort by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative to demonetize and suppress disfavored content across the internet.

As we noted on Wednesday, the WFA is a global association representing over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and over 60 national advertiser associations which created GARM in 2019.

This alliance quickly amassed significant market power, representing roughly 90% of global advertising spend, which amounts to nearly one trillion dollars annually.

GARM’s Steer Team reads like a who’s who of corporate America, including heavyweights such as Unilever, Mars, Diageo, Procter & Gamble (P&G), GroupM, AB InBev, L’Oréal, Nestlé, IBM, Mastercard, and PepsiCo. These corporations not only wield immense economic influence but are now revealed to be leveraging this power to control online discourse under the guise of “brand safety.”

Keep reading

Biden Administration Files Emergency Motion to Strike Down Injunction in RFK Jr., CHD Censorship Case

Lawyers for the Biden administration today filed a motion with the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals seeking to block an injunction that would have prohibited White House officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to suppress or censor online content.

The move came less than 24 hours after a lower court denied two crucial motions by government defendants seeking to overturn the preliminary injunction, set to take effect July 7, in the Kennedy v. Biden censorship lawsuit.

Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on Tuesday rebuffed the administration’s attempts to delay or modify the Kennedy v. Biden preliminary injunction.

The injunction was granted in February but temporarily stayed until 10 days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a similar injunction in a related censorship case, Murthy v. Missouri.

On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri did not have standing to bring the case.

In their dissenting opinion, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. argued that the majority decision was “blatantly unconstitutional” and that the court was “shirk[ing] its duty” by failing to rein in government censorship.

Attorneys for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden — said they believe CHD and Kennedy have standing, and overall, a stronger case.

Given the 5th Circuit’s previous ruling upholding the injunction in the related Missouri v. Biden case (later named Murthy v. Missouri), attorneys who spoke with The Defender were cautiously optimistic about the new developments.

Keep reading