Tag: social media

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

California Appeals Court Limits Privacy Rights of Online Messages

A legal battle, seen as a major privacy rights issue, came down to the extent to which the Stored Communications Act (SCA) protects user data, and is now headed to the Supreme Court of California.

This comes after the California Court of Appeal ruled in the Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court case that the majority of remotely stored messages are not covered by the Act’s law designed to prevent unlawful access to stored communications – Section 2702.

The CSA is there to stop platforms that provide online communications and storage from sharing contents of users’ online accounts (messages, emails, photos…). There are some exceptions in the legislation itself, e.g., unless the government obtains a warrant, that sets the bar relatively high.

But now, it looks like Big Tech’s “standard” business model – exploiting user data for massive profits – is coming back to haunt those users in yet another way.

Namely, the California Court of Appeal has found that if providers of that stored user data already have access to it, in order to monetize this content, then that content is effectively already disclosed and CSA has no business trying to protect it.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

And if this ruling stands, then tech companies can be asked to turn over user data without a warrant – a subpoena, the civil variety included – could potentially suffice.

Keep reading

UK Man Arrested For Social Media Posts Containing “Anti-Establishment Rhetoric”

The BBC reports that a 40-year-old man has been arrested and criminally charged for social media posts that contained “anti-establishment rhetoric.”

Yes, really.

Wayne O’Rourke becomes the latest example of the wave of authoritarian hysteria to impact free speech in the UK following the recent anti-mass migration riots.

O’Rourke was arrested on Sunday in connection with “posts made from a social media account,” according to Lincolnshire Police.

“Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard the posts were alleged to contain anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric,” reports the BBC.

O’Rourke had nearly 100,000 followers on X and predicted his own arrest days beforehand.

So now apparently posting “anti-establishment rhetoric” in the United Kingdom is enough to get you locked up.

The report does not give any specifics of what the thought criminal actually posted, but he had “allegedly expressed support for the recent riots and offered advice on how to remain anonymous to his 90,000 followers.”

Keep reading

US Court Reimposes “Disinformation” Device Monitoring on January 6 Defendant

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has issued an order in the United States v. Daniel Goodwyn case reimposing the computer monitoring measure against Goodwyn, a January 6 defendant.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

Goodwyn was charged and convicted for briefly entering the US Capitol during the January 6 events, and although he stayed inside the building for just over half a minute, left when he was asked to, was not involved in violence nor did he cause any damage – it was his social media posts (among others, screenshot of public documents that show names of government employees) that were seen as a threat.

In initial proceedings in 2023, Goodwyn pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of trespassing. As legal experts noted, normally a first-time offender isn’t sent to jail for this, but the US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Reggie Walton sentenced him to two months in prison.

This was accompanied by probation conditions that included unusually harsh and ongoing restrictions on Goodwyn’s online speech and access to information. Walton – a vocal critic of Donald Trump decided that Goodwyn’s computer must be “monitored and inspected” to make sure he was not “spreading disinformation.”

The appellate court then found that the district court “plainly erred” by imposing these surveillance measures. Judge Walton next decided that now, “on the heels of [sic] another election,” he was worried Goodwyn was spreading “false narratives” and therefore affirmed his original sentencing.

Keep reading

Secret Service Agent Partly Responsible for Security Planning at Butler Rally Under Internal Investigation for Leaking ‘Videos and Photos from Her Protective Assignments’ to Social Media: Report

A Secret Service special agent, who was partially responsible for planning security at the Butler, Pennsylvania rally where President Trump was nearly assassinated, is under internal investigation for allegedly leaking sensitive videos and photos from her protective assignments to social media.

According to RealClearPolitics (RCP) correspondent Susan Crabtree, the female agent served as the official site agent for the July 13 event in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a rallygoer, Corey Comperatore, was tragically murdered in front of his family.

An analysis of the agent’s Facebook account revealed a photo seemingly taken from Mar-a-Lago, captioned with a cheery message: “A sunset to be grateful for …” accompanied by heart and sunset emojis and hashtags like “#nofilter #southflorida #thankful #workmode.”

“Sources familiar with the videos said most appeared on the agent’s Instagram account, which is marked private,” Crabtree wrote on X.

More from RealClearPolitics:

Sources within the Secret Service say the site agent was inexperienced for such a critical security role but noted that the position is rotated throughout the Trump detail, not routinely assigned based on merit or experience.

There is now concern within the agency that the site agent for the Butler rally will take the fall for the event’s egregious layers of security failures – that Rowe will fire her over her social media posts, but not for any security failures at the July 13 event.

In contrast, the lead agent had decades of experience within the Secret Service but did not have experience on a protective detail, the innermost ring of security for presidents, first ladies, former presidents, and their families, according to sources in the Secret Service community familiar with her background.

While the months of rancor and recriminations leading up to the assassination attempt against Trump undoubtedly distracted the Trump detail from its ultimate mission, the Butler rally served as a wake -up call and a reset, according to sources close to Curran.

“Sone agents have referred to it as their 9/11 moment where people are opting back onto the detail,” remarked a source in the Secret Service community. “Morale is high, people are motivated. These agents [protecting Trump] are stiff-jawed with steel in their spine.”

This incident is not an isolated case but rather part of a broader pattern of dysfunction within the Secret Service detail assigned to Trump, according to Crabtree.

Keep reading

Musk Says Massive Cyberattack Delayed Trump Interview

Elon Musk’s planned Aug. 12 interview with Former President Donald Trump hit a roadblock after the owner said the site was facing a distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attack, preventing the X Space from going live.

“There appears to be a massive DDOS attack on X. Working on shutting it down,” Musk, the owner of X, said in a post.

“Worst case, we will proceed with a smaller number of live listeners and post the conversation later.”

Nearly 40 minutes past the planned start time, Musk’s voice finally broadcast in the Spaces room dedicated to the interview with more than a million users listening live.

Musk said the attack demonstrated that there are those who want to prevent the public hearing from Trump.

Twitter tested its Spaces platform with 8 million concurrent users earlier in the day, according to Musk.

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

Free Speech is Under Siege in Starmer’s UK

The UK is currently experiencing a massive attack on free speech, spearheaded by new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is encouraging police to use the full force of controversial British laws to crack down on social media posts.

The push for more online censorship has spanned many years, and different governments in the UK have gained new momentum with the recent protests and riots.

Emboldened by the crisis, officials seem to be using it to step up the already existing, multi-year effort to get social media companies to “cooperate” with the authorities.

It has now emerged that the government in London has started flagging content it deems to be “misinformation” – but also something referred to as “concerning content.”

X is among those who have been asked to remove posts which British officials consider to threaten the country’s national security; and while reports say Google, Meta, and TikTok are complying with these demands, X is said to be resisting them.

The accusations that social sites are “providing a platform for hate” while allegedly unaccountable for that is coming from cabinet members and MPs alike.

Science, Innovation, and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has revealed that he and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper are working to get content they consider “harmful” removed from the internet.

Recent actions in the UK regarding the apprehension of individuals for disseminating “incorrect information” highlight a concerning trend that threatens the very core of free speech—a foundational pillar of Western democracies.

These developments suggest an alarming escalation in government and law enforcement involvement in regulating online speech, which traditionally enjoys broad protections under democratic norms.

The use of existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 1986, to arrest individuals for their online speech is deeply troubling to civil liberties groups.

Keep reading