Last week, Reuters reported based on two anonymous sources that Amazon Web Services, which controls 40 percent of web hosting in the world, “plans to take a more proactive approach to determine what types of content violate its cloud service policies.”
“Over the coming months, Amazon will hire a small group of people in its Amazon Web Services (AWS) division to develop expertise and work with outside researchers to monitor for future threats, one of the sources familiar with the matter said. It could turn Amazon, the leading cloud service provider worldwide with 40% market share according to research firm Gartner, into one of the world’s most powerful arbiters of content allowed on the internet, experts say.”
Amazon declined to comment to Reuters for the story, then after the article published sent a statement insisting the report was “wrong,” claiming, “‘AWS Trust & Safety has no plans to change its policies or processes, and the team has always existed.’”
“We’ve always reserved the right to police who is allowed to speak on our internet” is not a very comforting response to an article alleging a coming content crackdown. In addition, to this post-publication claim from Amazon, “A Reuters spokesperson said the news agency stands by its reporting.”
Don’t forget the context: The Biden administration revealed a few weeks ago that they, mafia-like, pressure big tech entities like Facebook and Twitter to remove information that contradicts their political goals. (“That’s an, um, ‘misinformed’ piece of content over there on your platform. Sure would be a shame if the super-touchy Democrats controlling the entire federal government decided it was a reason to regulate and legally harass you.”)
Douglas Jensen stands accused of leading a mob that chased and hectored Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman inside in the Capitol on January 6. Jensen was wearing a Q-Anon shirt and had a knife in his pocket at the time.
In July, a federal judge granted Jensen pretrial release over the government’s objection. That judge imposed certain conditions on Jensen, one of which was that he could not use devices with access to the internet.
“A mere thirty days after his release from the D.C. Jail,” said the filing, “defendant Douglas Jensen was found alone, in his garage, using a WiFi-connected iPhone to stream news from Rumble.” As the document notes, Rumble is an alternative to YouTube that is popular among some conservatives.
During a check on Jensen, a court officer arrived at the defendant’s residence and found him watching the video streaming service on his phone. “Jensen eventually admitted to his Pretrial Services Officer that in the previous week, he had spent two days watching Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium regarding the recount of the presidential election,” the filing said.
The College Board has been accused of indoctrinating students in ‘woke’ politics by requiring them to choose an answer on an AP Government exam indicating voter ID discourages black people from voting.
“Nothing to see here, just an official AP Government practice exam forcing students to falsely say voter ID is racist and urging them to overturn voter ID laws in order to pass the test,” tweeted Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist.
The multiple-choice question asks, “Based on the infographic, which of the following claims would an opponent of state voter-ID laws most likely make?”
Students’ options for an answer are as follows:
- (A) Voter-ID laws are likely to decrease turnout among African American voters because they are less likely to have government-issued IDs.
- (B) Voter turnout will likely decrease by 10% if voters are required to present a government-issued ID to vote.
- (C) Voter-ID laws will likely decrease election fraud, which will increase voter confidence in institutions and thereby increase turnout.
- (D) African American voters who do not have government-issued IDs are likely to participate at the grassroots level and exert influence through channels other than turning out to vote.
Answer A is correct per the test rubric.
The following question on the test asks: “Based on the infographic, which of the following strategies would a group seeking to increase turnout likely pursue?”
Students are expected to select “Lobby state legislatures to overturn voter-ID legislation” in order to be marked with a correct answer.
Joe Biden’s Secretary of State Tony Blinken recently announced that he is inviting United Nations racism inspectors to the United States to conduct a report on American society. Blinken specifically invited Fernand de Varennes, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, and Tendayi Achiume, the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism. NATIONAL FILE has obtained video footage of de Varennes calling for the criminalization of “hate speech” and pushing for censorship by saying that free expression is not absolute. de Varennes even said that “I don’t think it will take that much effort” to pass legislation in the United States holding social media companies liable for supposed hate speech. NATIONAL FILE has also compiled evidence of both Varennes and Achiume bashing President Donald Trump and his supporters, and of Achiume calling for reparations for slavery and for “Migration as Decolonization” in Western countries including the United States of America.
Joe Biden’s Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who headed a Biden project at the University of Pennsylvania that took millions of dollars in anonymous Chinese donations, recently stated: “As the President has repeatedly made clear, great nations such as ours do not hide from our shortcomings; they acknowledge them openly and strive to improve with transparency. It is in this context that the United States intends to issue a formal, standing invitation to all UN experts who report and advise on thematic human rights issues,” he continued. “As a first step, we have reached out to offer an official visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and the UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues.”
A Big Tech-led group is using its influence and power to broaden its shared censorship database to curb “extremist content” and collect video and images deemed white supremacist, according to Reuters. The expansion comes after the group “took on renewed urgency” after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which Democrats and tech giants continue to use as an excuse to justify suppression.
Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube, tech oligarchs trigger-happy to deplatform political dissidents, founded the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism in 2017 in what they labeled “a new collective effort to prevent the spread of terrorist and violent extremist content online.” Initially, the organization claimed to focus its efforts on rounding up content from terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State and the Taliban as designated by the United Nations, but now the monopolies running GIFCT are using their oligarch power to crack down on dissidents of their elitist agenda.
Just five years after its founding, GIFCT is expanding its database to include “white supremacist” content as determined by the United Nation’s Tech Against Terrorism project and intelligence groups such as Five Eyes. According to Reuters, the database will include “attacker manifestos — often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence” as well as links and material from Proud Boys, Three Percenters, and other “neo-Nazi” groups that are identified and then censored or removed by social media platforms.
Previously we reported on Dr. Shiva Ayyarurai was able to uncover Twitter’s “partner support portal.”
Dr. Shiva discovered that Twitter built a special portal offered to certain governmental entities so that government officials can flag and delete content they dislike for any reason, as part of what they call their “Twitter Partner Status.”
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, the man who invented email, ran for US Senate in Massachusetts as a Republican and made allegations of voter fraud on Twitter. These tweets were then deleted by the far-left tech giant. Later it was discovered that they were deleted at the direction of government employees of the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office.
Discovering this, Dr. Ayyadurai filed a federal lawsuit by himself, alleging that his federal civil rights were violated when the government silenced his political speech in order to affect an election.
Rowsell warned that Facebook censorship has consequences. “This will inevitably negatively impact my earnings but also my social life and that of my wife who uses that platform to stay in touch with her family in Sweden,” he said.
He offered a grim estimation of why he was censored:
“I think this has social implications since I am only posting about historical subjects and not the controversial topics of immigration and vaccines that normally get people banned. I may be the first person banned not for what [I] have said, but for what they suspect me to think. Obviously this isn’t as big a deal as when they banned the President, but can be seen as a next step in their steady decline into totalitarian censorship.”
Videos on his page also range from explorations into niche English rural folklore to speaking with Vedic guru Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya or even traveling to Bali to learn about Balinese Hinduism. He described himself as a YouTuber with “over 10 million views” and said he previously worked for a subsidiary of the World Health organization in Sweden. His academic writings include headlines such as “Gender Roles and Symbolic Meaning in Njáls Saga” and “Representation of Hakon sigurdsson in Viking Age literature,” indicating a clear scholarly background.
Defendants in the Jan. 6th Capitol case are being deprogrammed by their own lawyer.
A public defender named H. Heather Shaner, we’re assured by Ryan J. Reilly of the Huffington Post, has no option but to defend the January 6 “attackers” because “who can’t afford their own attorneys, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and as laid out in the Criminal Justice Act.”
But she’s also taking the opportunity to re-educate her clients, so they aren’t racist anymore.
“Reading books and then watching these shows is like a revelation,” Shaner told HuffPost. “I think that education is a very powerful tool … So I gave them book lists and shows that they should watch.”
Shaner said her clients had poor educations and knew very little about the country. Her two female clients took to the task with zeal, Shaner said and got library cards for the first time in their lives.
“Both my women are like, ‘I never learned this in school. Why don’t I know about this?’” Shaner said. (A couple of the male clients weren’t quite as eager students, she said. “The men are very much like ‘Oh, I’ll get to it.’” But she said some of her male clients have been doing some self-education.) (source)
S0, if I understand this correctly, those poor dumb hick women just needed someone to help them see the error of their ways and introduce them to the joy of the public library, but the men refused to be womansplained to?
And how was this case race-related? It was purely political.
Shaner represents six of more than 500 Capitol defendants: Anna Morgan-Lloyd, Annie Howell, Jack Jesse Griffith (aka Juan Bibiano), Israel Tutrow, and Landon Kenneth Copeland.
As America closes in on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, the Feds want the public to believe that unknown terrorist organizations are recruiting your neighbor[s] to become a domestic extremist. But it is not just any neighbor, this time it is far-right “extremists” or White supremacists and Trump supporters who they want to recruit.
For years DHS officials have warned Americans of the dangers that lurk just outside their front doors or worse in the far-flung Middle East where extremists are plotting to bomb us, shoot us, or poison our water systems. The only difference to the terrorists that await Americans is that now they are allegedly targeting a person’s ideological beliefs.
According to Cohen, “the most significant terrorist threat facing the U.S. today comes from individuals or lone offenders, and small groups of individuals who based on an ideological belief system, primarily an ideological belief system they self-connect with online activity, but they’ll go out and commit an act of violence on behalf of that belief or a combination of ideological beliefs, or a combination of ideological beliefs and personal grievances.”
What does this mean for Americans?
It means that the Feds can target individuals for expressing anti-government sentiments.
“In many respects, this is a much more individualized threat, and what I mean by that is if you look at the lethal attacks that have occurred in the U.S. over the last several years, they have been conducted by individuals who spend incredible amounts of time online viewing extremist content, content about past violent attacks, they tend to be individuals who have shared behavioral health or environmental characteristics,” Cohen said.
Targeting people for their ideological beliefs is horrifying in and of itself. Biden’s new domestic terror law will also give law enforcement the right to target people based on their behaviors.
“What we mean by that, yes, the motive and ideological beliefs are important as part of the analytic process, but the threat tends to come from individuals who have a very superficial understanding of the ideological belief system they use as the validation for an act of violence, but they do have shared behavioral characteristics,” Cohen said.
If any of this is beginning to sound like China, one only need look at Hong Kong to see the similarities. Speaking out in print against an authoritative regime is an arrestable offense, demonstrating against police brutality is an arrestable offense and so on.
As a recent Brietbart article pointed out, there is no “official Pentagon definition of extremism.” So how can our government give more powers to law enforcement to surveil and arrest suspected “domestic extremists”?