Tag: censorship

Censorship and the Corruption of Advertising

The most powerful companies in the world have united against free speech, and they’ve deployed your tax dollars to fund their mission.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released a report on the little-known Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and its pernicious promotion of censorship. GARM is a branch of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a global association representing over 150 of the world’s biggest brands, including Adidas, British Petroleum, Nike, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Walmart, and Visa. 

The WFA represents 90% of global advertising spending, accounting for almost $1 trillion per year. But instead of helping its clients reach the broadest market share possible, the WFA has appointed itself a supranational force for censorship. 

Rob Rakowitz and the Mission to Supplant the First Amendment

Rob Rakowitz, the leader of the WFA, holds a particular disdain for free speech. He has derided the First Amendment and the “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution,” which he dismissed as “literal law from 230 years ago (made by white men exclusively).” 

Rakowitz led GARM’s effort to boycott advertising on Twitter in response to Elon Musk’s acquisition of the company. GARM bragged that it was “taking on Elon Musk” and driving the company’s advertising income “80% below revenue forecasts.”

Rakowitz also championed the unsuccessful effort to have Spotify deplatform Joe Rogan after he expressed skepticism for young, healthy men taking the Covid vaccine. Rakowitz attempted to intimidate Spotify executives by demanding to hold a meeting with them and a team that he said represented “P&G [Proctor and Gamble], Unilever, Mars,” and five advertising conglomerates. When a Spotify employee said he would meet with Rakowitz but not his censorsial consortium, Rakowitz forwarded the message to his partner, writing “this man needs a smack” for denying his demands. 

The WFA extended its efforts to direct manipulation of the news market. Through a partnership with the taxpayer-funded Global Disinformation Index, GARM launched “exclusion lists,” which created de facto boycotts from advertising on “risky” sites, which it described as those that showed the “greatest level of disinformation risk.” These lists included the New York Post, RealClearPolitics, the Daily Wire, TheBlaze, Reason Magazine, and The Federalist. Left-wing outlets, such as the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed News, were placed on the list of “Least risky sites,” which facilitated increased advertising revenue. 

GARM, the WFA, and Rakowitz is the latest scandal demonstrating the destruction of our liberties at the hands of consolidated power. Like the Trusted News Initiative or the Biden White House’s censorship efforts, the aim is to remove all sources of dissent to pave the way for the further corporatization of the oligarchy that increasingly replaces our republic. 

Keep reading

“Day Has Finally Come”: Instagram Censors Team USA Rifle Shooter Ahead Of Paris Paralympics

Big tech’s crackdown on “gunfluencers” is nothing new, but policies at social media companies are becoming increasingly restrictive (read: here), leading to the demonetization of numerous channels. The latest victim of this aggressive censorship isn’t even the typical gun YouTuber but instead a competitive rifle shooter on Team USA for the Paralympics. 

Just The News reports that McKenna Geer, a competitive rifle shooter, had her Instagram account censored before she heads to Paris for the Paralympic Games in late August. Next week, the Olympic Games are set to begin.

Geer’s Instagram account, “kennageer10.9,” was reportedly censored by the social media company because of photos she posted with firearms at a qualifying competition. 

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

She continued, “This sport is life-changing because of its ability to unite both able-bodied and disabled athletes, young and old, foreign and domestic. Me and my fellow athletes rely on our social media accounts to spread the word about our sport, firearm safety, build our personal brand, and connect with potential sponsors. Many of us (myself included) are either not paid or paid very little for our involvement in this sport. Our social media presence can often be the avenue that pays for us to continue competing.”

Geer posted a screenshot of an image that shows her account has been censored.

“Your account and content won’t appear in places like Explore, Search, Suggested Users, Reels, and Feed Recommendations,” the Instagram notification reads.

Keep reading

YouTube Tightens Stranglehold On Firearms Content — Blocks All Gun-related Sponsors

When Google and YouTube first announced that they would be demonetizing a host of channels back in 2017 (including firearms-related content) they said is was because advertisers were “complaining” about their ads being featured in videos that were contrary to their messaging.  In other words, the excuse was that ads embedded on firearms channels might give their customers the “wrong impression” about those companies and their products, and Google didn’t want to anger their advertising partners.

It’s hard to say how accurate this claim was. The exposure of ESG and Big Tech collusion with government agencies to censor conservative platforms supports the idea that there was probably an organized corporate push to suppress the political opposition on YouTube as much as there was an effort to shut them down on social media.

The majority of conservative content creators understood that this was not about advertisers, it was about narratives.  The exploding popularity of gun channels runs contrary to the media assertion that American society is moving increasingly to the left.  And, even though gun channels mostly focus on firearms and instruction, they also promoted conservative and constitutional values which represent a thorn in the side of the establishment.

Keep reading

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