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

Today’s The Day: Twitter To Start Purging Users And Prevent “Certain Content From Trending”

Here’s your “Net Neutrality” …P.D.

Twitter will begin suspending accounts which engage in “hateful conduct” or affiliate with organizations which “use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes” both on and off the platform, following a November announcement. The new rules apply to whatever Twitter deems “hateful,” including “hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header.”


Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO

Moreover, Twitter will officially begin restricting “trending” content, to wit:

 At times, we may prevent certain content from trending.

While many conservative Twitter users have suffered unfair account suspensions, mysterious drops in retweets and likes on controversial tweets, overnight drops in follower count, and unexplained disappearances of trending topics which paint liberals in a bad light, Twitter’s new rules effectively allow the social media giant to openly engage in censorship without repercussion.

Via Twitter Help Center

Abusive Behavior

We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

Context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions. Factors we may take into consideration include, but are not limited to whether:

  • the behavior is targeted at an individual or group of people;
  • the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander;
  • the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest.

Violence: You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism.

You also may not affiliate with organizations that – whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform – use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.

Abuse: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

Hateful imagery and display names: You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. You also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category.

While Twitter’s new rules are sure to lead to the purge of countless supremacists, you can say goodbye to Pepe the Frog – a cartoon meme made popular during the 2016 election among Trump voters, which the ADL considers to be a hate symbol despite a small percentage of Pepe memes expressing anti-Semitism or bigotry.

If I get booted from Twitter in the purge tomorrow, you’ll be able to find me talking to my kids for once and seeing what it’s like outside.

Last month Twitter suspended it’s “blue check mark” verification policy, stating that it will rescind a user’s verified status if a person violates company guidelines. With blue checks having become a status symbol over the years, Twitter thinks the system is flawed and needs an overhaul.

“Our agents have been following our verification policy correctly, but we realized some time ago the system is broken and needs to be reconsidered,” CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted in November. “And we failed by not doing anything about it. Working now to fix faster.”

Verification was meant to authenticate identity & voice but it is interpreted as an endorsement or an indicator of importance. We recognize that we have created this confusion and need to resolve it. We have paused all general verifications while we work and will report back soon

The announcement was quickly followed by the removal of blue checks from white nationalist Richard Spencer’s account, Unite the Right organizer and former Obama activist Jason Kessler, and conservative Jewish journalist Laura Loomer – who compared the loss of her blue check to the holocaust.

And so it begins. Twitter is quick to call me and others Nazis, but they are literally trying to eradicate my presence. Just like Hitler. https://twitter.com/_jeff_smith/status/930993983047786497 

Twitter’s recent changes have sparked a stampede of users to competing social network Gab.ai, “a social network that champions free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online. All are welcome.”

If I get booted from Twitter in the purge tomorrow,you’ll be able to find me on gab👉

Ahead of the  make sure you follow me on Gab.ai. You can find me DavidVance. (I am verified over there too!) Let’s drain the twitter swamp!

Not sure what’s up with this whole Twitter Purge chatter, but I’m on Gab too at http://gab.ai/JaredBeck  https://twitter.com/RealMattWalter/status/942448729310801920 

If I get purged in the  tomorrow you can follow me on my gab.ai account or millennial http://millie.com  & check my YouTube MillennialMillie for updates.

At this rate, someday you’ll hop on Gab to tell your grandchildren where you were when the great Twitter purge began.

YouTube: Ministry of Truth

YouTube “Tweaks” Its Search Algos After Las Vegas Conspiracy Theories Go Viral

In Silicon Valley’s ongoing crusade to make sure that you only consume mainstream media propaganda, you know because $100,000 worth of Facebook ads crushed Hillary’s campaign and changed the course of human history forever, YouTube has joined the likes of Facebook and Twitter in saying that it will promote more “authoritative sources in search results” going forward.  All of which, once again, begs the question of who gets to determine who is an “authoritative source?”

As the Wall Street Journal points out today, YouTube searches for “Las Vegas Shooting” earlier this week included a video from “End Times News Report” with the title “Proof Las Vegas Shooting Was a FALSE FLAG Attack – Shooter on 4th Floor.”  The video, created by Jake Morphonios who posts YouTube videos in his spare time, quickly went viral and amassed over 1.1 million views in just 27 hours…but all that changed when YouTube decided to censor Morphonios’ content and replace it with mainstream media videos…you know for your protection.

For example, the fifth result when searching “Las Vegas shooting” on YouTube late Tuesday yielded a video titled “Proof Las Vegas Shooting Was a FALSE FLAG attack—Shooter on 4th Floor.” The video said there were multiple shooters in Sunday’s mass shooting, a claim dismissed by law enforcement. Posted by a channel called the End Times News Report, it amassed more than 1.1 million views in about 27 hours.

The high search ranking of the End Times News Report video claiming there was a second shooter in Las Vegas helped it gain 371,000 views over four hours late Tuesday. On Wednesday, YouTube removed the video.

Jake Morphonios, who runs the End Times News Report along with a damaged-inventory-liquidation business in Kernersville, N.C., said the video eventually reached 2.5 million views. “It was a hot topic, of course, and was going to get some views anyway, but it really did get caught in [YouTube’s] algorithm and went viral from there,” he said. “Clearly it got into featured videos or something.” The 43-year-old said he has posted about 800 videos and typically gets about 5,000 views each.

He said he aims to offer viewers information on news events that mainstream news sources won’t. “It’s my opinion, it’s my analysis, and everyone’s got an opinion, and I can understand that maybe they don’t want me to be considered the equivalent of The Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or something like that,” he said. “But still, I’m not presenting myself as mainstream media. I’m just a guy with a computer offering an opinion. And to be punished for that is, well, it’s draconian.”

Not surprisingly, YouTube said the the “tweaks” made to their search engines were designed to promote more “authoritative sources,” especially when searches are related to “major news events.”

In response to criticism on social media of some search results this week, a person familiar with YouTube said the company is accelerating the rollout of planned changes to its search engine. On Wednesday night, the video service began promoting more authoritative sources in search results, especially pertaining to major news events, the person said. YouTube doesn’t disclose how it determines which sources are authoritative.

But while YouTube refused to offer any insights into how they plan to decipher “authoritative sources” from “non-authoritative sources”, running the same search for “Las Vegas shooting” today, after YouTube’s ‘tweaks’, provides some clues on their methodology…

Conclusion, YouTube’s ‘tweaks’ have turned it into nothing more than a mainstream media echo chamber.

FROM: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-06/youtube-tweaks-its-search-algos-after-las-vegas-conspiracy-theories-go-viral