Proof Emerges that Tech Giants are Targeting Specific Speech for Censorship

These tech companies have monopoly status thanks to millions of dollars in lobbying and billions of dollars in federal contracts, as well as protections from legal action thanks to their status as a “public forum.” It is censorship at this point, especially since it’s not equally applied between progressives and conservatives. …I see grounds for lawsuits. 

thumbs down facebook

Facebook Insider Leaks Docs; Explains “Deboosting,” “Troll Report,” & Political Targeting in Video Interview

Read More: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/02/27/facebook-insider-leaks-docs/?fbclid=IwAR1zNLWeijzU3I8dNKc8vUqyqQgi0jgMxfgLrsr815ExkGECBe4DUZ_ExBY

Platform, or Publisher?

If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business.

May 7, 2018

While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

Read More: https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html?fbclid=IwAR3INYeDKZMMzP7HFkha2U_0ScSIq4EcfLFakV9vRPlKOUEhtbptl6K4DqE

Political Correctness Mixed w/ Government-run Healthcare and Censorship/Unpersoning

Ashton Birdie Alex Jones Deplatformed UnPersoned

Socialism and Political Correctness are a Dangerous Mix

Unfortunately instead of working to depoliticize tech, it’s far more likely that we will see increased politicization of other vital parts of American life – and perhaps none is more dangerous than that applied to healthcare.

While it is easy to mock the economic illiteracy of politicians like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, there is no question that her brand of democratic socialism is growing in popularity – and not just on the left. It’s worth remembering that only a few years ago candidate Donald Trump gave his own endorsement to a healthcare vision similar to that held by AOC and Bernie Sanders.

Consider the troubling potential of a progressive government that drops all pretense of valuing free speech, and then giving that government complete control of the healthcare system.

While this perhaps sounds like the makings of an outlandish dystopian novel, imagine the sort of policies we’ve already seen come from the executive branch. Under the Obama Administration, we saw the use of the IRSDepartment of Homeland Security, and even intelligence agencies to target and punish political opponents. Meanwhile, the progressive left has increasingly identified those who believe the “wrong ideas” – such as skeptics of anthropogenic climate change – as dangerous threats guilty of the crimes equivalent to murder.

In an age where a new generation of doctors increasingly rejects the Hippocratic oath, a government take over of medical care – as the honest advocates of “Medicare for All” propose – could inevitably lead to politicized regulators making life and death decisions for Americans.

Now does this mean I think it’s likely that a President Ocasio-Cortez would instruct a “political death panel” to not provide Alex Jones with life saving treatment? Not necessarily. The issue, however, is that the greater control the state has on medicine, the more decisions are influenced by the concerns of government, rather than the needs of patients. In such a dark timeline, if socialized healthcare forced America to face the sort of medical rationing that Britain’s prized National Health Service has been reduced to, it would be fair to wonder if Gavin McInnes would receive the same sort of treatment as an Ezra Klein.

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/state-influencing-big-techs-unpersoning-imagine-if-it-take-overs-healthcare-0?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

The State Is Influencing Big Tech’s “Unpersoning” — Now Imagine If It Takes Over Healthcare


12/11/2018

let’s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.

While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech’s growing hostility to free speech.

For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on “sexualized content” on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, “anti-hate speech” laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.

While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what’s been likened to a modern version of Orwell’s “unpersoning.” Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.

First let’s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.

While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech’s growing hostility to free speech.

For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on “sexualized content” on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, “anti-hate speech” laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.

While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what’s been likened to a modern version of Orwell’s “unpersoning.” Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.

The traditional libertarian response to these issues is to simply build another platform, but that seems increasingly impotent in the face of the union between Big Tech and state.

Gab, for example, is a product that arose in direct response to increased censorship on Twitter. The app has found itself deplatformed from both major phone app stores, even before user Robert Barnes killed 11 people at a Pennsylvania synagogue earlier this year and heightened law enforcement’s attention to the site. It’s worth noting that Facebook, a prolific donor to America’s political class, did not receive similar treatment when it was used to broadcast torture and murder. Similarly, cryptocurrency exchanges have faced backlash from government officialstraditional financial services companies, and tech companies in their effort to build alternatives to state-controlled financial networks.

Of course the answer to this new era of Big Brother (Sister?) isn’t government regulation, as many on the populist right advocate. The history of government involvement in communication platforms has been one of increased censorship. Instead, the best way to confront the Silicon Valley’s censorship is to recognize the inherently perverse influence of government and pursue a separation of tech and state. For example, attack all forms of state privileges enjoyed by companies that don’t recognize freedom of speech: such as government contracts, and liability waivers. Additionally, allow private citizens to sue when companies violate their terms of service or mislabel themselves as “open platforms.”

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/state-influencing-big-techs-unpersoning-imagine-if-it-take-overs-healthcare-0

Free Speech and Tech Giant Censorship

Social Media Facebook Twitter PayPal Censorship

How The New NAFTA Trade Deal Lets Big Tech Squelch Conservative Speech

By   13, 2018

Less than two weeks ago, President Trump signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement intended to be the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Trump has attacked for decades. The White House says the agreement will “better serve the interests of American workers and businesses” and “includes the strongest digital trade … provisions of any United States trade agreement.”

Unfortunately, an obscure article in one provision of the agreement only serves the interests of the largest tech monopolies by granting them special privilege to censor conservatives. Congress should demand the removal or amendment of this article before giving consent to confirm section 230.

How did this happen? Big Tech lobbyists orchestrated the quiet insertion of a seemingly innocuous provision (Article 19.17) into the deal that is based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230, much beloved by big tech, and an essential building block of their monopolistic dominance, holds that platforms like Facebook cannot be held liable as a “publisher or speaker” of their users’ content.

Under the right circumstances, there’s good reason for tech companies to have this type of immunity. If Facebook were legally responsible for everything its more than 2 billion users post, then it would enforce overly restrictive rules and restrictions and block lawful posts. Because Congress explicitly acknowledged that these platforms served as a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse,” it granted this important privilege.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/the-new-nafta-trade-deal-lets-big-tech-squelch-conservative-speech/

Congress Should Reconsider Big Tech’s Special Legal Privileges That Foster Censorship

   14, 2019

On Jan. 9 we sent letters to the chairs and ranking members of the House Judiciary, House Energy and Commerce, Senate Judiciary, and Senate Commerce committees requesting hearings on this matter in order to seek an appropriate governmental remedy to online censorship.

This request comes after we have carefully tracked and documented viewpoint censorship for years. Repeatedly, we have urged Big Tech leaders to adopt a free speech charter to ensure their platforms are an even playing field for debate. In December 2017, we launched Internet Freedom Watch to draw greater attention to this problem. For many years we have amassed evidence of viewpoint censorship on the internet, illustrating it with a timeline with more than 40 high-profile examples.

In addition to Graham, the timeline is a veritable who’s who of Christian and conservative leaders and causes, including cases involving Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Susan B. Anthony List, PragerU, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Alliance Defending Freedom, NRBTV, Erick Erickson, Dr. Michael Brown, Live Action, D. James Kennedy Ministries, Dr. Carol Swain, Ray Comfort, Phil Robertson, Todd Starnes, Chuck Colson’s Manhattan Declaration, and other Christian leaders and ministries, as well as conservative leaders and organizations.

The common denominator is espousing viewpoints progressives oppose and increasingly seek to squelch in the public marketplace of ideas. Although some of these cases of censorship were later corrected, that the problem persists and is growing indicates it is systemic.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/14/congress-reconsider-big-techs-special-legal-privileges-foster-censorship/

‘The goal is to automate us’: welcome to the age of surveillance capitalism

John Naughton
Sun 20 Jan 2019

…The headline story is that it’s not so much about the nature of digital technology as about a new mutant form of capitalism that has found a way to use tech for its purposes. The name Zuboff has given to the new variant is “surveillance capitalism”. It works by providing free services that billions of people cheerfully use, enabling the providers of those services to monitor the behaviour of those users in astonishing detail – often without their explicit consent.

“Surveillance capitalism,” she writes, “unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data. Although some of these data are applied to service improvement, the rest are declared as a proprietary behavioural surplus, fed into advanced manufacturing processes known as ‘machine intelligence’, and fabricated into prediction products that anticipate what you will do now, soon, and later. Finally, these prediction products are traded in a new kind of marketplace that I call behavioural futures markets. Surveillance capitalists have grown immensely wealthy from these trading operations, for many companies are willing to lay bets on our future behaviour.”

While the general modus operandi of Google, Facebook et al has been known and understood (at least by some people) for a while, what has been missing – and what Zuboff provides – is the insight and scholarship to situate them in a wider context. She points out that while most of us think that we are dealing merely with algorithmic inscrutability, in fact what confronts us is the latest phase in capitalism’s long evolution – from the making of products, to mass production, to managerial capitalism, to services, to financial capitalism, and now to the exploitation of behavioural predictions covertly derived from the surveillance of users. In that sense, her vast (660-page) book is a continuation of a tradition that includes Adam Smith, Max Weber, Karl Polanyi and – dare I say it – Karl Marx.

Read More: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-google-facebook

Google Staff Tell Bosses China Censorship Is “Moral and Ethical”

CrisisRyan Gallagher
August 16 2018

Google employees are demanding answers from the company’s leadership amid growing internal protests over plans to launch a censored search engine in China.

Staff inside the internet giant’s offices have agreed that the censorship project raises “urgent moral and ethical issues” and have circulated a letter saying so, calling on bosses to disclose more about the company’s work in China, which they say is shrouded in too much secrecy, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter.

The internal furor began after The Intercept earlier this month revealed details about the censored search engine, which would remove content that China’s authoritarian government views as sensitive, such as information about political dissidents, free speech, democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest. It would “blacklist sensitive queries” so that “no results will be shown” at all when people enter certain words or phrases, leaked Google documents disclosed. The search platform is to be launched via an Android app, pending approval from Chinese officials.

The censorship plan – code-named Dragonfly – was not widely known within Google. Prior to its public exposure, only a few hundred of Google’s 88,000 employees had been briefed about the project – around 0.35 percent of the total workforce. When the news spread through the company’s offices across the world, many employees expressed anger and confusion.

Read More: https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/google-china-crisis-staff-dragonfly/

Political Censorship: Facebook Purges Pages and Groups Based on Anonymous Political Hit List

Facebook was Created by DARPA

Pages purged by Facebook were on blacklist promoted by Washington Post

By Andre Damon
13 October 2018

Media outlets removed by Facebook on Thursday, in a massive purge of 800 accounts and pages, had previously been targeted in a blacklist of oppositional sites promoted by the Washington Post in November 2016.

The organizations censored by Facebook include The Anti-Media, with 2.1 million followers, The Free Thought Project, with 3.1 million followers, and Counter Current News, with 500,000 followers. All three of these groups had been on the blacklist.

In November 2016, the Washington Post published a puff-piece on a shadowy and up to then largely unknown organization called PropOrNot, which had compiled a list of organizations it claimed were part of a “sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign.”

The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”

The publication of the blacklist drew widespread media condemnation, including from journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, forcing the Post to publish a partial retraction. The newspaper declared that it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”

While the individuals behind PropOrNot have not identified themselves, the Washington Post said the group was a “collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.”

Read More: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/cens-o13.html

Facebook Purges Over 800 Accounts With Millions Of Followers; Prominent Conservatives Vanish

Just in time for midterms, Facebook has removed 559 pages and 251 accounts they claim have been spreading misinformation and spam. Several of the pages however – some with millions of followers, were pro-Trump conservatives who had spent years cultivating their followings.

Facebook claims that “domestic actors” have been creating “fake pages and accounts to attract people with shocking political news,” reports Bloomberg.

“The people behind the activity also post the same clickbait posts in dozens of Facebook Groups, often hundreds of times in a short period, to drum up traffic for their websites,” Facebook said in a Thursday blog post.

“And they often use their fake accounts to generate fake likes and shares. This artificially inflates engagement for their inauthentic pages and the posts they share, misleading people about their popularity and improving their ranking in news feed.”

Some pages Facebook removed had large followings of real and fake accounts. Nation in Distress, a conservative meme page, was followed by more than 3 million people, according to the Internet Archive, which stores historical versions of websites and other online content. –Bloomberg

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-11/facebook-purges-over-800-accounts-millions-followers-including-conservative-meme

Why No One Trusts the Elites: The Real Fake News = The Lies of Mainstream “Authorities”

Is What You Believe To Be True Actually True? Or Do You Believe Fake News

Manufacturing Truth

Read More: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/12/04/the-disintegration-of-western-society/

Why we stopped trusting elites

 29 Nov 2018

A modern liberal society is a complex web of trust relations, held together by reports, accounts, records and testimonies. Such systems have always faced political risks and threats. The template of modern expertise can be traced back to the second half of the 17th century, when scientists and merchants first established techniques for recording and sharing facts and figures. These were soon adopted by governments, for purposes of tax collection and rudimentary public finance. But from the start, strict codes of conduct had to be established to ensure that officials and experts were not seeking personal gain or glory (for instance through exaggerating their scientific discoveries), and were bound by strict norms of honesty.

But regardless of how honest parties may be in their dealings with one another, the cultural homogeneity and social intimacy of these gentlemanly networks and clubs has always been grounds for suspicion. Right back to the mid-17th century, the bodies tasked with handling public knowledge have always privileged white male graduates, living in global cities and university towns. This does not discredit the knowledge they produce – but where things get trickier is when that homogeneity starts to appear to be a political identity, with a shared set of political goals. This is what is implied by the concept of “elites”: that purportedly separate domains of power – media, business, politics, law, academia – are acting in unison.

A further threat comes from individuals taking advantage of their authority for personal gain. Systems that rely on trust are always open to abuse by those seeking to exploit them. It is a key feature of modern administrations that they use written documents to verify things – but there will always be scope for records to be manipulated, suppressed or fabricated. There is no escaping that possibility altogether. This applies to many fields: at a certain point, the willingness to trust that a newspaper is honestly reporting what a police officer claims to have been told by a credible witness, for example, relies on a leap of faith.

A trend of declining trust has been underway across the western world for many years, even decades, as copious survey evidence attests. Trust, and its absence, became a preoccupation for policymakers and business leaders during the 1990s and early 2000s. They feared that shrinking trust led to higher rates of crime and less cohesive communities, producing costs that would be picked up by the state.

What nobody foresaw was that, when trust sinks beneath a certain point, many people may come to view the entire spectacle of politics and public life as a sham. This happens not because trust in general declines, but because key public figures – notably politicians and journalists – are perceived as untrustworthy. It is those figures specifically tasked with representing society, either as elected representatives or as professional reporters, who have lost credibility.

To understand the crisis liberal democracy faces today – whether we identify this primarily in terms of “populism” or “post-truth” – it’s not enough to simply bemoan the rising cynicism of the public. We need also to consider some of the reasons why trust has been withdrawn. The infrastructure of fact has been undermined in part by a combination of technology and market forces – but we must seriously reckon with the underlying truth of the populists’ charge against the establishment today. Too often, the rise of insurgent political parties and demagogues is viewed as the source of liberalism’s problems, rather than as a symptom. But by focusing on trust, and the failure of liberal institutions to sustain it, we get a clearer sense of why this is happening now.

The problem today is that, across a number of crucial areas of public life, the basic intuitions of populists have been repeatedly verified. One of the main contributors to this has been the spread of digital technology, creating vast data trails with the latent potential to contradict public statements, and even undermine entire public institutions. Whereas it is impossible to conclusively prove that a politician is morally innocent or that a news report is undistorted, it is far easier to demonstrate the opposite. Scandals, leaks, whistleblowing and revelations of fraud all serve to confirm our worst suspicions. While trust relies on a leap of faith, distrust is supported by ever-mounting piles of evidence. And in Britain, this pile has been expanding much faster than many of us have been prepared to admit.

Confronted by the rise of populist parties and leaders, some commentators have described the crisis facing liberalism in largely economic terms – as a revolt among those “left behind” by inequality and globalisation. Another camp sees it primarily as the expression of cultural anxieties surrounding identity and immigration. There is some truth in both, of course – but neither gets to the heart of the trust crisis that populists exploit so ruthlessly. A crucial reason liberalism is in danger right now is that the basic honesty of mainstream politicians, journalists and senior officials is no longer taken for granted.

There are copious explanations for Trump, Brexit and so on, but insufficient attention to what populists are actually saying, which focuses relentlessly on the idea of self-serving “elites” maintaining a status quo that primarily benefits them.

Read More: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/nov/29/why-we-stopped-trusting-elites-the-new-populism

DEBRA SOH NOVEMBER 28, 2018

A new academic journal, titled The Journal of Controversial Ideas, launching in the new year, will be peer-reviewed and offer a diverse range of viewpoints, calling upon liberals, conservatives, as well as those who are religious and secular, to submit their work. Most notably, it will allow academics to publish under pseudonyms.

Much of the response to this journal has been criticism alleging that only academics with hateful ideas would require the option to publish under a pseudonym. In truth, facts today are deemed controversial if they deviate from accepted narratives, and professors must self-censor out of fear of being condemned and losing their jobs.

Based on conversations I’ve had with colleagues still working in academia and from what I can tell about recent cases of censorship, the antagonism is primarily from left-leaning colleagues attacking other liberals. The problem has been increasing and was the reason I chose to leave the field of sex research.

In the last several months alone, multiple controversies involving academic censorship have emerged. Earlier this year, a paper by Theodore Hill, a professor emeritus of mathematics at the Georgia Institute of Technology, wrote about the “greater male variability hypothesis,” which posits that men are more variable than women along a number of traits, including intelligence, translating to a greater number of men at the high and low extremes.

After the paper was accepted in one journal and subsequently rescinded due to feminist scholars’ fears that it would be used to justify sexism, Dr. Hill got the paper published in another journal online, only to have it disappear from its website shortly thereafter. He was told the decision was not due to the paper’s scientific methods but its political implications.

In August, another controversy erupted when PLOS ONE published a study by physician Lisa Littman. She wrote about rapid-onset gender dysphoria, a growing phenomenon of girls who, out of the blue, announce they are transgender. Due to backlash from transgender activists, Brown University pulled the study’s corresponding press release, and PLOS ONE said the study had been placed under review. Considering that it underwent peer review prior to being published and other experts in the field would have scrutinized it for its methodology and content, the decision was unheard of.

These instances are indicative of a larger, worrisome trend – instead of debating contentious ideas, those in opposition to them throw words ending in “-phobic” around, shutting the conversation down and pretending they don’t exist.

Read More: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-in-academia-censorship-and-conformity-have-become-the-norm/

YouTubers Respond to Data & Society’s Amateurish Smear Report on the “Alternative Influence Network”

Data & Society is a Soros/Globalist think tank that just released a propaganda hit piece on the popular political commentators on YouTube that disagree with their globalist, corporate and anti-democratic goals.

In their hit piece they say there is a network of YouTube creators and that they’re all spreading dangerous extremism by allowing open debate and guesting on each others channels.

They attempt to connect the entire fictional network by saying that if they’ve ever guested on another channel they are automatically connected to every other ideology of anyone that’s every also been on that channel.

So of course they pull out the most radical and extreme media boogeymen,  like the so-called neo-Nazi Richard Spencer. They claim that if someone had a debate with Spencer (even if refuting his views) they’re still a part of the extremists network. This also goes for anyone that had guested on the same channel or hosted someone from any channel that Spencer had ever been on. Well, of course the connections are all proven by the intricate diagram they present… but is it really?

The truth is, since deregulation led to media consolidation, alternative voices got relegated to the internet and YouTube. But because of their honesty  and transparency YouTubers started getting better ratings than the mainstream media. (Someone like Joe Rogan or Paul Joseph Watson get astronomically higher views than anything on TV.)

Now thanks to things like Brexit and the election of Trump, the controlling establishment understands they has lost control of the narrative and are striking back with censorship and propaganda to try to silence dissenting voices on the last free-speech platforms they don’t entirely control.

Here’s some of the best comebacks about this report from YouTubers….

George Soros NGO Partners with Facebook for “Election Security”

Darth Soros

Facebook partners with Atlantic Council to improve election security

ALI BRELAND – 

Facebook announced on Thursday that it is launching a partnership with the Atlantic Council to boost its global election security efforts.

Experts from the international think tank’s Digital Forensic Research Lab will help provide Facebook “real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.”

Facebook said it will also use the Atlantic Council’s Digital Research Unit Monitoring Missions during elections and other “highly sensitive moments,” according to a post written by Facebook’s global politics and government outreach director, Katie Harbath.

The social media company will also consult with the Atlantic Council to address other political security issues that could arise on its platform.

The partnership comes as a part of Facebook’s efforts to beef up election security on its platforms following some groups attempting to use it as a tool to interfere in other countries’ elections.

The company has fielded heavy criticism from politicians over how Russian trolls spread misinformation and attempted to sow discord during the 2016 presidential race. Foreign groups attempted similar operations in other countries’ elections as well.

Though the most firey criticism directed at Facebook over the issue of election security has come from the U.S., the company said that it is focused on making sure its platform can’t be manipulated by nefarious groups abroad as well.

Read More: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/388166-facebook-partners-with-atlantic-council-to-improve-election-security

The FBI: The Silent Terror of the Fourth Reich (Special Release)

With every passing day, the United States government borrows yet another leaf from Nazi Germany’s playbook: Secret police. Secret courts. Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Censorship. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption. Entrapment. Indoctrination. Indefinite detention. These are not tactics used by constitutional republics, where the rule of law and the rights of the citizenry should reign supreme. Rather, they are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, where the only law that counts comes in the form of heavy-handed, unilateral dictates from a supreme ruler who uses a secret police to control the populace. That danger is now posed by the FBI, whose laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, harassment, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, and that’s just based on what we know.

French President Macron Demands Anti-Fake-News Law “To Protect Democracy”

SO the best way to protect democracy is censorship?

Europe is gone.

Welcome to tyranny!

War is Peace - Freedom is slavery - ignorance is strength

Following Germany’s (and Brussels) lead to tyrannical repression of any free speech in Europe, French President Macron said on Wednesday he would overhaul French media legislation this year to fight the spread of “fake news.”

As Reuters reports, since he was elected last year, Macron has criticized Russian media in particular, openly accusing TV channel RT of sowing disinformation about him via its website and social media during the presidential election.

“If we want to protect liberal democracies, we must have strong legislation,” Macron told a news conference.

Macron said the legislation would concern social media platforms, especially during election periods, and deeply change the role of France’s media watchdog CSA.

One can’t help but read Macron’s quote and think Orwellian utopia…

read more: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-03/french-president-macron-demands-anti-fake-news-law-protect-democracy