“The Biden administration was working every possible angle to keep people alive”
First Amendment? What First Amendment?
The Biden administration’s internet censorship regime seemed to have a special hatred for humor. Maybe that’s because its boss is a walking joke.
We have learned that the administration unconstitutionally pressured internet platforms to remove a video mocking Jill Biden and a Twitter account impersonating Biden’s granddaughter.
Facebook reported Biden officials demanding that humor be banned if it made jokes about the vaccine.
“There is likely a significant gap between what the WH would like us to remove and what we are comfortable removing,” the Facebook vice president said.
As one example, the executive listed the White House’s desire that the company take action against humorous or satirical content that suggested the vaccines aren’t safe.
“The WH has previously indicated that it thinks humor should be removed if it is premised on the vaccine having side effects, so we expect it would similarly want to see humor about vaccine hesitancy removed,” the vice president wrote.
The future must not belong to those who mock the prophet Fauci.
Ponder for a moment that the Biden regime was pushing past what a billionaire leftist kid and a former liberal British politician from a country where censorship is routine were comfortable with.
“I can’t see Mark in a million years being comfortable with removing that—and I wouldn’t recommend it,” Clegg wrote in a subsequent email, an apparent reference to CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Democrats are doubling down on “We had to ban comedy or everyone would die”.
“In 2021, in the darkest days of the pandemic, of course the Biden administration was working every possible angle to keep people alive,” a spokesman for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said in a statement.
If banning humor didn’t work, the Democrats were going to keep us alive by abolishing the Constitution and sending everyone to labor camps. Every possible angle had to be explored to keep everyone alive and under the watch of guard towers at every moment of the day until the time came to turn them into mulch.
Whether or not that’s humor, the Biden administration’s Office of Comedy and Censorship will have to decide.
While Facebook shut down dissenting opinions regarding the COVID vaccine and continues to censor patriotic conservatives who reject the Left’s agenda by supporting Trump and free societies, the Big Tech giant has shown us who it thinks is deserving of its platform. Facebook has been caught creating pages for the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. According to a watchdog group Tech Transparency Project (TTP): “The company [FB] could potentially be held responsible for these pages as Facebook not just hosting but actually creating them.”
Facebook is no stranger to controversy, permitting Jew-hatred to fester and giving a free pass to anti-Israel lies and antisemitic propaganda.
The social media giant is now in hot water due to the technology it uses to promote content, which a watchdog group called the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) says automatically creates home pages for U.S.-designated terror groups.
Among the TTP report’s bombshell findings is evidence alleging that Facebook created over 100 pages for ISIS (Islamic State), as well as pages for other terror organizations, including the group behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Al-Qaeda.
TTP reported that Facebook creates the pages based on its algorithm, automatically generating them when users add the terror groups to their profiles. The platform’s so-called ban on the groups apparently did little to prevent the automatic process that generated the terror group pages.
“Some of these automatically generated pages have been living on Facebook for years, racking up likes and posts with terrorist propaganda and imagery,” reported the Jerusalem Post in its coverage of the TTP’s findings. “The company could potentially be held responsible for these pages as Facebook not just hosting but actually creating them.”
This is only the latest chapter in Facebook’s struggles to keep hate off its platform.
Over the last several years, Facebook has been a hotbed for anti-Israel lies and antisemitic propaganda.
At the end of 2022, a post with tens of thousands of likes on Facebook claimed that the Palestinians aren’t playing in the World Cup because Israel is “murdering” their players. The claim was demonstrably false and had zero basis in reality….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2023-02-23 05:30:272023-02-26 05:09:54Facebook caught ‘not just hosting,’ but creating pages for the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda
“What the Zuck?” is a valid question asked in the title of the Breitbart article below, “What the Zuck: Facebook Welcomes Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Back on Platform.”
In 2021, before the Azov battalion became accepted as a key element of Ukraine’s defense against Russia, Time magazine did an exposé on the group. Some key points that are relevant to the US and other Western countries about the Azov movement, which has denied its neo-Nazi activities for years: Time points out that in October 2019:
40 members of Congress signed a letter calling—unsuccessfully—for the U.S. State Department to designate Azov a foreign terrorist organization. “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years,” the letter said.
Time conducted its own investigations:
TIME, in more than a dozen interviews with Azov’s leaders and recruits, found that the key to its international growth has been its pervasive use of social media, especially Facebook, which has struggled to keep the group off its platform. “Facebook is the main channel.”
The Azov Regiment doesn’t aim to only protect Ukraine, but to spread its National Socialist ideology. There could even be violence in America itself:
In their letter to the State Department in 2019, U.S. lawmakers noted that “the link between Azov and acts of terror in America is clear.”
Azov’s main recruitment center in Kyiv disseminates Nazi propaganda. “On the ground floor is a shop called Militant Zone, which sells clothes and key chains with stylized swastikas and other neo-Nazi merchandise.”
The Azov movement insists it is not neo-Nazi, yet its members have been captured giving Hitler salutes and being virulently anti-Semitic….
Members even muse that some Jews would not be allowed to stay in Ukraine if they ever seized power.
At a time when antisemitism is on the rise, why is the Azov Regiment being welcomed back on Facebook? Mark Zuckerberg has weaponized the Facebook platform as a political tool, employing bold and unapologetic censorship tactics to target users with views that oppose those of the establishment Left. Meanwhile, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were allowed on Facebook, and now the Azov Regiment. Facebook, of course, banned Donald Trump. The reasoning that governs Facebook (Meta) concerning the Azov battalion is that as the group is “under the command and control of the Ukrainian government,” it is benign and has shed its Nazi elements.
But that line of reasoning is irrational. The neo-Nazi Azov Regiment was formally incorporated into the Ukraine National Guard since November 11, 2014. Its character hasn’t changed just because Ukraine has now been invaded. The change from “Battalion” to “Regiment” was cosmetic — an attempt to rebrand in the face of the war with Russia. As that war goes on, the Doomsday Clock has now moved closer to midnight.
The decision to provide a forum for neo-Nazis will likely backfire on “Zuck.”
Facebook (now known as Meta) has removed Ukraine’s Azov Regiment — members of which regularly display Nazi symbols and signs on their uniforms — from its list of dangerous individuals and organizations. With this change, Mark Zuckerberg is welcoming members of the Azov Regiment who were once blacklisted to utilize his massive platform.
The Washington Post reports that as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues, Facebook has modified its approach to content moderation. The neo-Nazi Ukrainian military group Azov Regiment was recently removed from the social media behemoth’s list of potentially harmful people and groups. With this modification, members of the Azov Regiment will be able to sign up for Facebook and Instagram accounts and post content without worrying about it being taken down unless it violates the platforms’ content policies. Other users will be able to openly laud and support the group’s work due to the change.
This policy change comes after months of criticism of how the social media juggernaut is handling the conflict, with many questioning where it draws the line between promoting free speech about the conflict and containing rhetoric that could have violent or dangerous offline repercussions. The company has been criticized by its Oversight Board, an independent group of primarily leftist activists, academics, and experts who oversee Facebook’s content moderation decisions, for going too far in removing content that challenges authoritarian governments or leaders.
Historically, there has been controversy surrounding the Azov Regiment. It is one of Ukraine’s most skilled military units and has engaged in combat with Russian forces in strategic locations like the besieged city of Mariupol and close to Kiev. However, there were worries that the group was drawing extremists because of its ties to its neo-Nazi ideology. The Azov forces were partially referred to when Russian President Vladimir Putin described his invasion of Ukraine as an effort to “de-Nazify” the nation.
According to Facebook, the neo-Nazi Azov Movement and the Azov Regiment are no longer affiliated. It mentions that the unit is formally under the command and control of the Ukrainian government. According to Facebook, there are still “elements of the Azov Movement, including the National Corp., and its founder Andriy Biletsky” on its list of potentially harmful people and groups. “Hate speech, hate symbols, calls for violence, and any other content which violates our Community Standards are still banned, and we will remove this content if we find it,” the company said.
Ukraine’s minister for digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, praised Facebook’s choice and singled out former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, Fakebook’s president for international affairs. “Means a lot for every Ukrainian. New approach enters the force gradually,” Fedorov tweeted. “Big contribution @nickclegg & his team in sharing truthful content about war.”…..
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2023-01-26 06:19:512023-03-02 15:41:06Facebook Welcomes Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Back on its Platform
The Department of Homeland Security has left open a special feature that allows government officials to flag Facebook posts for misinformation after scrapping a controversial advisory board tasked with developing guidelines for social media censorship, the Intercept reported Monday.
DHS announced plans for a Disinformation Governance Board to “develop guidelines, standards, guardrails to ensure that the work that has been ongoing for nearly 10 years does not infringe on people’s free speech rights, rights of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May, according to The Hill. While DHS shuttered the initiative after an onslaught of bipartisan opposition decrying the potential censorship, the Intercept found through an analysis of public and leaked documents that government efforts to police tech companies goes on.
Those activities include a Facebook portal only accessible by government and law enforcement representatives to formally request the platform kill or label alleged misinformation, according to the Intercept. A leaked set of slides contains instructions on how to operate the system, and the URL to access the site — facebook.com/xtakedowns/login — was still active at the time of publication.
“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” a DHS official told a Microsoft representative in February, according to the Intercept.
The U.S. government has for years discussed the scope and scale of online content moderation the government should engage in, as well as how to compel social media platforms to flag or remove “misinformation,” “disinformation” and “malinformation,” the Intercept reported, citing meeting minutes and records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt.
The department now considers rooting out misinformation online as a critical element of its overall mission, according to a draft of the 2022 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review reviewed by the Intercept.
While the document highlights counter-terrorism as DHS’s primary objective, it acknowledges that “misinformation and disinformation spread online” can exacerbate terrorist threats from “domestic violent extremists,” according to the Intercept. It calls for DHS to use advanced computer analytical software and hire experts “to better understand how threat actors use online platforms to introduce and spread toxic narratives intended to inspire or incite violence.”
However, DHS has defined the “critical infrastructure” threatened by domestic terrorists to encompass trust in government, public health and election security, according to the Intercept.
“No matter your political allegiances, all of us have good reason to be concerned about government efforts to pressure private social media platforms into reaching the government’s preferred decisions about what content we can see online,” Adam Goldstein, the vice president of research at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told the Intercept.
Agencies under DHS — Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Science and Technology Directorate and the Secret Service — all have directives to combat misinformation online, the Intercept reported, citing a DHS Inspector General report from August.
Meta and DHS did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-10-31 15:41:092022-10-31 15:42:58Government Officials Have A Special Portal To Flag Facebook Posts For Censorship
Everything that progressive fascists believe is now an official fact.
“The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of the Big Lie,” authored by a CBS reporter and a political activist, is the latest effort by leftists to wrap themselves in the banner of truth.
Media bias has shed its protective coloration of neutrality and blares that its side, leftists, represent the truth and conservatives the ‘lie’. The title of the “The Big Truth”, an otherwise forgettable exercise in virtue signaling, is interesting only because it so perfectly encompasses a media feed that is a mad libs game of “X Republican lied, Y Democrat hopes truth will win out.”
The problem is that this isn’t just propaganda distilled to its raw essence so that every media headline now reads like the title of Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”.
The problem is that the leftists created the infrastructure of a new truth using the three Cs, credentialism, crisis and censorship, to eliminate debate and the marketplace of ideas.
Credentialism has experts, activists, academics, members of leftist think-tanks and non-profits, wrongly described as non-partisan, and other interested figures with degrees, declaring that a leftist narrative, global warming, systemic racism, transgenderism in children, or election results is a fact backed by studies and research. A crisis is declared accompanied by dire warnings that questioning their manufactured truth will cost more lives. In the final stage, censorship, internet monopolies, allied with the media and politicians, suppress disagreement as misinformation.
Before, in between and after the media serves as the connective tissue, promoting partisan hacks as experts, hammering home the crisis and pressuring tech firms to censor dissent.
While pandemic lockdowns will quickly come to mind, the model was operating before then and has come to be used on virtually any issue from refugees to questioning elections (won by the media party) to crime and school sexualization. Everything the Left believes is now a fact and a crisis, disagreeing with it is disinformation, treason and terrorism. The crackdown swiftly follows.
Facts, we are often told, cannot be debated. And since everything the Left believes is a fact, there is no longer any room for debate. Reasonable and intelligent people of good faith, the media tells us, would never disagree with these facts. Only bigot, trolls and extremists peddling disinformation, dissent. And since they disagree with the truth and the facts, they’re liars.
And censoring “extremists” and “liars” has become the new civic duty of internet monopolies. This is the ubiquitous progressive fascism of cancel culture, censorship and endless battles against misinformation that have come to define what used to be the marketplace of ideas.
Questioning the credentials of the experts is an attack on science, facts and the very idea of truth. Civil society, the experts tell us, can’t exist unless we trust them. Anyone who disagrees is out to undermine society and tear apart the official artificial truth that is meant to bind us in the digital Mordor being built by mighty tech monopolies one server farm and fact check at a time.
Add on the second C, crisis, and there isn’t even any time or space to debate the ethics of silencing political dissent while people are dying from cow flatulence, law enforcement or an inability to speedily sexually mutilate children. Censorship becomes more urgent than ever.
Declaring that their opinions are “truth” and that any disagreement is a “lie” is a crucial element.
The media’s narrative is more than just propaganda. The rhetoric you used to hear from Franken, Stewart and Colbert has become a crucial part of a massive censorship scheme. But by focusing on the negative, the censorship of dissent, it’s easy to miss what has actually happened, which is a manufactured consensus tying together the government, the media, think-tanks and non-profits, academia and internet monopolies in one totalitarian system.
Progressive fascism suppresses disagreement in order to unilaterally impose its official “truths”.
At the heart of the debate is the question of what truth is and how we arrive at it. Media bias and debates over what objective journalism is run up against the “new truths” every time.
A simple bit of factual objective reporting might be that Bob X shot Jack Y in the head in the middle of Main Street. Caught on camera, what went on down is the indisputable truth. The new truth, the one that increasingly shows up in media coverage, is that systemic racism, income inequality and the lack of gun control laws led to a shooting on Main Street. Bob and Jack, like all individuals, are mere bit players in the larger leftist sociopolitical dramas of class and race.
The school shooter is an afterthought in the scramble to call for new gun control laws, the rapist is just a figment of abortion laws and misogyny, hurricane victims have to make way for reports about global warming. The traditional leftist belief that people are just pawns of the academic phenomena pervades the media because it represents the new truth.
The new truth treats a worldview as a fact. Individuals in the media have become types, irrelevant as people, vital only in that they convey the larger leftist worldview. A school shooting victim who advocates for gun control can easily gain a national profile, but one who calls for locking up criminals never will.
Journalists used to think that truths were personal, not political. The new truth has reversed everything with the ultimate truths being political and personal truths relegated to the anecdotal.
Who, What, When, Where, and Why has been reduced to only the last W. Only the ‘Why’ matters and the answers are always political. The ‘Why’ is systemic racism, global warming, a lack of gun control laws, the patriarchy, capitalism, homophobia, colonialism, and the rest of the attacks on civilization. The other four Ws are just there to provide examples to illustrate the fifth.
The media wraps itself in the banner of the truth because it’s retreating from the facts. Its fact checks, a crucial tool for both credentialism and crisis, will often deem things that are true to be false because they lack context. And given enough of the right context, things that are factually false can be made to seem true and things that are factually true can appear false.
Credentialism makes narratives seem to resemble facts. But the narrative is a belief system that contends that leftist ideas are absolutely true in some higher sense, despite failing to work in real life. It’s the ‘truthiness’ that Colbert made his career mocking, with activists in expert drag to make it seem as if it’s the product of objective research rather than feelings.
The Left is not a movement of facts, no movement is. People are not passionately driven to fight and die, to uproot lives and transform society by objective facts and research studies. They fight out of love and hate, a desire for independence, tribalism, greed, ego, idealism and a search for meaning and a thousand other intangibles that are part of human nature, not for facts.
Emerging in an era where scientific discoveries were changing the world, the Left has always garbed its prejudices, biases, drives and malice in the veneer of academic theory. Its genius has been to bridge the lower realm of the peasant revolt with the intellectualism of the salon, the mind and the heart, claiming the sanction of both reason and empathy when it has neither.
The new truth is more of the same. Its truth is the conviction that the holistic leftist worldview is factually accurate in all of its details. The expert credentialism deployed to create facts and then fact checks is just apologia for an ideological movement. What used to be propaganda, activists in expert drag, has morphed into full progressive fascism that is out to impose its truth on you.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-10-30 05:55:542022-10-30 05:59:05Credentialism, Crisis and Censorship: How the Left Eliminated Debate
Why the Biden administration wants the “experts” to determine if there’s a recession.
Facebook is now censoring posts and videos about the Biden recession by using partisan fact-checks from left-leaning outlets to wrongly condemn them as “misinformation”.
The fact checks rely on the same argument being propounded by the Biden administration and its media allies that only the National Bureau of Economic Research and, more specifically, its Business Cycle Dating Committee, can officially decide if there’s a recession.
And anyone who isn’t on the Committee talking about a recession is spreading “misinformation”.
That’s an obvious problem because 2 out of 3 American voters, including even 53% of Democrats, believe that there’s a recession. That’s a whole lot of people to censor.
Totalitarian Communist regimes in Russia and China have criminalized discussions about domestic economic problems, and the American Left is trying to deploy its propaganda machine of partisan media outlets, fact checkers and Big Tech monopolies to duplicate their efforts.
It’s bound to fail.
Declaring that only a small group of “experts” is allowed to call it a recession despite the fact that two consecutive quarters of a shrinking economy is the definition of a recession is a gatekeeping fallacy.
And the experts are hardly any more objective than the fact checkers citing them.
Peter Blair Henry, the current vice chair of the National Bureau of Economic Research, was the head of the Obama campaign’s economics advisory team and then served on his transition team. And Henry has promoted Biden’s disastrous inflationary “Build Back Better” plan.
Of the eight economists on the Business Cycle Dating Committee, the team that the White House and the media insist are the only ones who get to decide if it’s a recession, several held posts in the Obama administration, and others were clearly aligned with the Democrats.
Christina and David Romer, a husband and wife team, already an innate conflict of interest, were described as “staunch Obama supporters” in an IMF profile. Romer had provided “briefing memos” to Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s radical economic adviser, during the campaign, and she went on to chair Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. In that role, she aggressively pushed for an even bigger “stimulus package” than the one that damaged the economy under Obama.
Robert J. Gordon compared Trump to Hitler and declared that he would miss Obama’s “eloquence”. He claims that America’s growth is over and proposes a program of a “progressive tax code”, eliminating deductions, legalizing drugs, and providing a lot more welfare.
Gordon had joined lefty economists in arguing that the era of permanent economic malaise was upon us. During the 2016 election, his “The Rise and Fall of American Growth” was frequently cited as expert evidence that serious GDP growth of the kind Trump was urging was impossible.
The economist, or someone by that name from his university, appears to be a donor to Democrat candidates, the DNC and at least one anti-Republican PAC.
Gordon was also a signatory to an open letter titled, “Economists Oppose Trump’s Re-Election”.
The pro-Biden and anti-Trump letter included the contention that Trump “claimed to have the unique ability to generate growth (in real GDP) of between 4% and 6%, but never surpassed 2.9% in his first three years in office. Furthermore, analysts at Goldman Sachs and Moody’s Analytics have projected that Joe Biden’s economic plans, if implemented, would actually generate faster growth in both employment and real GDP.”
Gordon, along with other lefty academics, was expressing a political preference for Biden over Trump while claiming that this position was backed up by their “expert” opinion.
Biden’s economic plans led to a massive disaster, but there’s no reason to think that Gordon or any of the other economists involved in this letter are ready to admit that they were wrong.
And that Biden has inflicted a recession on America.
Another of the members of the Business Cycle Dating Committee who also signed the anti-Trump and pro-Biden letter is Mark Watson of Princeton. Watson was also the co-author of an infamous argument claiming that the economy performs better under Democrat presidents.
His work was cited by Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers co-authored together with James Stock, a member of the council who serves as another member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee.
Obama had appointed Stock to his Council of Economic Advisers in 2013. Stock was both an Obama and a Hillary donor. He also contributed $2,800, close to the maximum, to Biden.
The political conflict of interest in determining that the economy is in recession is obvious.
Of the remaining Business Cycle Dating Committee members, Robert Hall appears to have donated to a Democrat candidate. James Poterba hadvocally praised Obama’s economic council members, calling them “realists and pragmatists who are looking for what will work to address the particular problems we are facing”.
What that means is that of the eight Business Cycle Dating Committee members, a quarter are former members of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, half are public Obama supporters, one is a Biden donor, two have expressed public opposition to Trump and support for Biden.
This group of experts is anything but non-partisan and the lean is anything but conservative.
It’s fair to say that 6 of the 8 Business Cycle Dating Committee are either Democrats or aligned with Democrats. Another is ambiguous and only one has expressed no recent public political preference.
It’s obvious why the Biden administration is betting that a group stocked with its own political allies will be less likely to state the obvious about the state of the economy. Democrats, their media and their tech monopolies are using expert gatekeeping by their own allies to deny that there’s a recession even though the vast majority of Americans know that it’s already here.
It doesn’t take the Business Cycle Dating Committee to state the obvious. All it can do is stonewall what everyone can see around them. Beyond their political allegiances, many members of the Committee have a history of being fundamentally wrong about the economic measures of the Obama and Trump administrations. Many supported the Obama era inflationary spending that deepened our national debt and suppressed our economic potential.
There’s no reason to think they’ve learned to be any more correct or any less biased.
The new technocratic totalitarianism insists that the nature of reality is controlled by small groups of partisan handpicked experts and that ordinary people have no right to disagree, and that furthermore it is the job of the tech monopolies who control the marketplace of ideas to immediately stamp out such dissent as “disinformation” and a “threat to democracy”.
But reality isn’t controlled by experts and the efforts by the Biden administration to build a wall of experts around reality is as doomed to failure as similar measures in totalitarian states.
After first denying the reality of inflation, the Biden administration is trying to deny the recession.
The same experts who tried to deny the disastrous effects of Obama’s economy are trying to tell the same lies for Biden. But no amount of lies will turn a recession into a recovery.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-08-04 05:02:542022-08-04 05:04:52The Democrat Economists in Charge of Deciding ‘If’ There’s a Recession
Elon Musk’s Twitter acquisition — which can be summed up as the world’s wealthiest person buying one of the most powerful social media and news platforms — underscores one of the big problems with Big Tech.
In the absence of modernized anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, Big Tech companies in the U.S. have amassed far too much economic and political control over society, and especially over the news and publishing industries.
The power at Big Tech companies with respect to their management of sites like Facebook News and Google News – is held by a few individuals who are often times more motivated by a desire to turn profits and promote their own ideology or world view, rather than by a genuine desire to guarantee a free and diverse press.
Due to Big Tech’s market manipulation in the news and publishing industries, thousands of local and smaller news operators — including many conservative publications — have been forced to shutter their doors in recent years.
This forsakes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus, is a threat to our democracy.
Importantly, new survey research shows that the American public recognizes this threat, and wants their elected officials to act on it.
New polling by Schoen Cooperman Research — conducted among a representative sample of U.S. adults and commissioned by News Media Alliance — reveals widespread concern surrounding Big Tech’s power and manipulative practices, as well as strong support for reforms to rein in these monopolies.
Notably, strong majorities of Americans are concerned about the economic and political power of Big Tech companies (74%) and are supportive of increased government regulations on Big Tech companies in order to curb their economic and political power (63%).
With respect to news and publishing specifically, nearly 4-in-5 Americans are concerned that Big Tech companies have too much power over these industries (79%) and manipulate these industries for their own gain (78%).
To that end, three-in-four Americans agree that “Big Tech’s monopoly over the news and publishing industries is a threat to the free press and unfair to publishers, especially to small and local outlets.” (76%)
In addition to being broadly concerned about this problem, Americans are supportive of Congress taking action to restore fairness, balance, and freedom to the press.
Respondents were asked about a specific piece of legislation proposed in Congress known as the Journalism, Competition, and Preservation Act (JCPA). The JCPA would provide a legal basis for news publishers to negotiate fair terms for use of their content by Big Tech companies — and thus, would demonstrably curb the economic and political power of these companies.
Remarkably, 7-in-10 Americans support Congress passing the JCPA (70%) and believe it is important for Congress to pass the JCPA (64%) after reading a brief description of the bill. And by a four-to-one margin, U.S. adults would be more likely, rather than less likely, to back a candidate for Congress who supported the JCPA.
In my experience as a professional pollster who has worked in opinion research for over four decades, it is rare for an issue or piece of legislation to garner this level of public support.
Our findings present a clear call-to-action to Congress, and elected officials in both parties now have a mandate from the public to rein in Big Tech by pursuing the JCPA or similar reforms.
Moreover, the very survival of American democracy is contingent on our leaders safeguarding free speech and ensuring a fair economy.
Congress must fulfill its duty by passing legislation like the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act into law.
Contributor. Douglas E. Schoen is a Democratic pollster and strategist. He is the author of “The Political Fix: Changing the Game of American Democracy, From the Grass Roots to the White House.” The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-09 05:27:352022-05-09 05:30:03SCHOEN: Americans Are Sounding The Alarm Over Big Tech
What do they say about Karma? It seems that efforts to deplatform, defund, censor, malign, criticize, label and destroy President Donald J. Trump, the TRUTHsocial app and Trumpsters in general is going downhill fast.
There’s a growing thirst to hear from President Trump and groups like Canada’s Nelk Boys and Joe Rogan are getting huge benefits from having President Trump on their shows to talk about Biden and his Build Back Worse agenda.
The Nelk Boys interview with President Trump had 5 million views within 24-hours on YouTube, before Google took the video down.
The people of tired of Biden’s America last policies and want to hear what President Trump thinks about what is happening in America, the economy, the invasion of Ukraine, China and Taiwan, Iran nuclear deal and many other global issues impacting the United States.
Here’s some news that Trump is scheduled to appear on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
#BREAKING Donald Trump Is Scheduled To Go On The “Joe Rogan” Podcast.
Russia’s Prosecutor General asked a court to formally designate Facebook and Instagram owner Meta as an extremist organization.
“Consistent with the Federal Law on Countering Extremist Activities, the Russian Prosecutor General’s office has lodged a motion with a court for designating Meta Platforms Inc. as an extremist organization and banning its operations in the territory of the Russian Federation,” said the office on Friday, according to the Interfax news agency.
At the same time, the Russian Investigative Committee said it was probing the social media company “in light of unlawful calls for violence against citizens of the Russian Federation by employees of the U.S. company Meta.”
Finally, remember when German Delegation at the UN laughed at Trump when he warned them about dependence on Russia’s natural gas and oil?
When Trump spoke at the UN and called out countries for depending on Russian oil, the German delegation laughed at him.
We’re guessing that the Germans aren’t laughing now that they are getting 50% of their oil and natural gas from Putin.
President Trump warned,
Reliance on a single foreign supplier can leave a nation vulnerable to extortion and intimidation. That is why we congratulate European states such as Poland for leading the construction of a Baltic pipeline, so that nations are not dependent on Russia to meet their energy needs…Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course.
Trump chose not to give hostile actors power over the U.S., especially when he was the president of an energy rich country. Understanding how essential energy independence is to national security, he wisely set out to achieve it.
by Jonathan Chadwick, MailOnline, December 21, 2021:
Facebook allowed photos of beheadings and violent hate speech from ISIS and the Taliban to be tagged as ‘insightful’ and ‘engaging’, a new report reveals.
Extremists have turned to the social media platform as a weapon ‘to promote their hate-filled agenda and rally supporters’ on hundreds of groups, according to the review of activity between April and December this year.
These groups have sprouted up across the platform over the last 18 months and vary in size from a few hundred to tens of thousands of members, the review found.
One pro-Taliban group created in spring this year and had grown to 107,000 members before it was deleted, the review, published by Politico, claims.
Overall, extremist content is ‘routinely getting through the net’, despite claims from Meta – the company that owns Facebook – that it’s cracking down on extremists.
‘We do not allow individuals or organisations involved in organised crime, including those designated by the US government as specially designated narcotics trafficking kingpins (SDNTKs); hate; or terrorism, including entities designated by the US government as foreign terrorist organisations (FTOs) or specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs), to have a presence on the platform. We also don’t allow other people to represent these entities.
‘We do not allow leaders or prominent members of these organisations to have a presence on the platform, symbols that represent them to be used on the platform or content that praises them or their acts. In addition, we remove any coordination of substantive support for these individuals and organisations.’
The groups were discovered by Moustafa Ayad, an executive director at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank that tracks online extremism….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2021-12-23 04:06:312021-12-23 04:10:10Facebook allowed photos of beheadings from ISIS and the Taliban to be tagged as ‘insightful’ and ‘engaging’
Now the Left’s entire “fact check” deception is exposed. My latest in FrontPage:
For years now, Facebook and the other social media giants have been acting as the guardians of acceptable opinion, banning even the president of the United States for stating views they decided had to be forcibly suppressed. But now, facing a serious legal challenge to their massive censorship of dissidents from the Leftist agenda and ongoing infringement of the freedom of speech, Facebook has finally admitted what its foes have contended from the beginning: its “fact checks” are not really factual at all, but are simply opinion. On the basis of that opinion, innumerable truthful voices have been silenced; lovers of freedom can only hope that this startling admission is the beginning of the end of the social media giants’ hegemony.
This labeling of Stossel had a powerful effect: he was “censored on Facebook and his work was undermined by the ‘fact check’ that he alleged was defaming his character by falsely accusing him of lying.”
Faced with a legal challenge from Stossel, Facebook’s lawyers were cornered into making the damaging admission about its “fact check” labels: “The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.” This is a sleazy tactic, given Facebook’s current power over the public discourse. Reclaim The Net noted that “Facebook wants the ability to allow fact checkers to accuse their users of lying and censor and ban users based on those ‘fact checks,’ but not to have any liability for accusing those users of lying.”
Facebook has done immense damage to a great many more people than just Stossel with these “opinions.” Numerous sites that report on news that the Left doesn’t want you to know have been and/or continue to be shadowbanned or have been removed from Facebook altogether.
Of course, it’s not just Facebook, either. This is by now a tried-and-true tactic of the Left. For years the obscenely wealthy and fantastically corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has operated in the same way, smearing and defaming foes of the Left’s agenda as “extremists” and equating them with neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen. As a target of this myself, I have several times inquired with lawyers about whether I could sue the SPLC for defamation and am always told the same thing: it’s just their opinion, it’s protected speech, you would have to prove actual malice, and so on.
The problem with this is that the SPLC’s “opinion,” like that of Facebook, is taken as sober, objective fact by numerous organizations and institutions, many of which use the SPLC’s spurious and defamatory “hate group list” to determine whom they will do business with and whom they will shun. Amazon, for example, has a special service for 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, but those that have been smeared by the SPLC, even if they have been neither accused nor convicted of any wrongdoing and are still charities recognized by the U.S. Treasury Department, are excluded from participation. And Amazon is by no means the only corporation to operate this way.
Now that Facebook has made this admission, it has thereby cast doubt upon the Left’s entire “fact check” operation. For Leftists, “fact checking” is just another means to discredit and destroy their political opponents, not a means to get to the truth of the matter at all. But Facebook’s admission will, unfortunately, not likely change anything: the evil conglomerate will continue to infringe upon the freedom of speech and police opinions, allowing only those of the far-Left to be disseminated freely.
To solve this problem will require a president who understands the threat to the freedom of speech that Facebook and the other social media giants pose, and who has the will, the power, and the support to act decisively. If the United States is to survive as a free republic, Facebook, Twitter, Google and all the rest will have to be broken up, the way AT&T was long ago. Otherwise, these sinister oligarchies will continue to strangle and silence dissenting voices, until finally there is no one left at all to speak out as they implement their authoritarian agenda in full.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2021-12-17 08:30:472021-12-17 08:35:29Facebook Finally Admits It: Its ‘Fact Checks’ Are Just Opinion
In November, we covered the outrageous discrimination GoFundMe and Facebook (1.00) conducted against Kyle Rittenhouse. Both companies decided to be judge, juror, and jailer – refusing to let those who thought Rittenhouse deserved his time in court raise money or promote their points of view, respectively. As we wrote, Rittenhouse “was treated as a racist who wanted to murder – two narratives which we now know are not true.”
We are pleased to report that both companies have reversed their policies. GoFundMe announced that fundraisers for Rittenhouse may resume, and Facebook lifted its ban on searches and support for Rittenhouse. But we do not congratulate them, or offer even a single cheer for belatedly getting things almost entirely wrong.
The fact is that GoFundMe allows fundraisers for all sorts of people who are accused of heinous crimes. Fox Business reports:
But at the time that GoFundMe shut down all Rittenhouse defense funds in August of last year, they allowed countless fundraisers for the defense of other individuals accused of violent crimes. One of them was a defense fund for Marc Wilson, who claims he was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed a 17-year-old girl in a purported road rage incident.
Wilson’s GoFundMe page is on hold while the company reviews the fundraiser, but even this shows their bias. They removed fundraisers for Rittenhouse because – to quote the new announcement – “GoFundMe’s Terms of Service prohibit raising money for the legal defense of an alleged violent crime.” Yet Wilson’s remains, as does the fundraiser launched by Jacob Blake’s mother…even though Blake was accused of sexual assault and other crimes when the fundraiser was launched.
As for the Planned Parenthood (1.25) page on Facebook, well – America’s largest abortion provider, which kills hundreds of babies each year, it has over 980,000 Facebook followers. Many abortions definitely violate the extremist and violence-oriented bans which Facebook has implemented, but don’t take our word for it – see a former abortionist’s 2015 testimony to Congress. And let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenics supporter and a racist, and that the abortion industry as a whole kills black babies more than those of any racial group.
From Jacob Blake to Kyle Rittenhouse to Planned Parenthood, Facebook and GoFundMe have shown their true colors. Their recent decisions cannot hide their selective enforcement policies, which – amazingly – seem to support only one side of our nation’s critical debates. Shame on them.
Now that you know more, what are you waiting for? Use your voice to let GoFundMe and Facebook know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable!
“The Taliban’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan poses a new challenge for big U.S. tech companies on handling content created by a group considered to be terrorists by some world governments.”
The challenge really isn’t about “handling content” at all. The solution is simple: strip jihadists of their accounts. Instead, Twitter and Facebook are now waffling, even though they rapidly swing into censorship mode to crack down on the content of conservatives, including even the former President of the United States, Donald Trump.
It isn’t the first time Twitter rolled out the red carpet for bloodthirsty jihadists. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameini celebrated jihad terror against Israel on Twitter.
Taliban soldiers are now going door to door forcibly marrying girls as young as 12, and forcing them into sex slavery, but to Facebook and Twitter, it’s a “content challenge” on whether or not to host the Taliban.
How do Facebook and Twitter now answer questions about their globalist, “progressive” bias in favor of the most barbaric human rights abusers, while continuing to crack down on and silence supporters of Judeo-Christian democracies, human rights defenders and truth-tellers? They have no answers, so they get their mainstream media cronies to minimize this serious issue for them, and buy time for them until the next news cycle.
To Facebook and Twitter, conservative truth-tellers are the “extremists” and “terrorists” (“Islamophobes,” too), not the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood.
by Elizabeth Culliford and Kanishka Singh, Reuters, August 16, 2021:
Aug 16 (Reuters) – The Taliban’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan poses a new challenge for big U.S. tech companies on handling content created by a group considered to be terrorists by some world governments.
Social media giant Facebook confirmed on Monday that it designates the Taliban a terrorist group and bans it and content supporting it from its platforms.
But Taliban members have reportedly continued to use Facebook’s end-to-end encrypted messaging service WhatsApp to communicate directly with Afghanis despite the company prohibiting it under rules against dangerous organizations.
A Facebook Inc (FB.O) spokesperson said the company was closely monitoring the situation in the country and that WhatsApp would take action on any accounts found to be linked with sanctioned organizations in Afghanistan, which could include account removal.
On Twitter Inc (TWTR.N), Taliban spokesmen with hundreds of thousands of followers have tweeted updates during the country’s takeover.
Asked about the Taliban’s use of the platform, the company pointed to its policies against violent organizations and hateful conduct but did not answer Reuters questions about how it makes its classifications. Twitter’s rules say it does not allow groups who promote terrorism or violence against civilians….
These include controversial blocks of former U.S. President Donald Trump for inciting violence around the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and bans on Myanmar’s military amid a coup in the country….
Micheal Goodwin: President Biden tried Friday to clean up the mess he allowed in Afghanistan. He made everything worse. His lies, contradictions and occasional incoherence must be ringing alarm bells across the U. S. & among our allies around the world. https://t.co/tVlcPeKKkg
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2021-08-21 07:07:512021-10-07 20:20:12Taliban Leaders Freely Used Twitter and Facebook’s WhatsApp as They Took Power in Afghanistan
The UN and Big Tech are running a secret “No Fly List” for the internet.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki warned that her administration was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook” and urged, “you shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others.”
Psaki was not just advocating a theoretical approach, but discussing the shared infrastructure built by Big Tech monopolies, the United Nations and assorted governments for doing just that.
In his PJ Media article, Tyler O’Neil dug into the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) which is funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and currently chaired by Twitter. Its advisory committee members include the United Nations, the European Union, and the British, French, and Canadian governments as well as the National Security Council in the U.S.
GIFCT had been set up by the industry in response to pressure from governments to remove Jihadist propaganda, but its Hash Sharing Consortium, a secret database of terrorism content to be immediately removed when its 13 dot com companies come across it, is secret, and so there’s no way for anyone to know if they’ve been targeted and no appeal from the secret list.
The creation of a secret “No Fly List” for the internet by the biggest monopolies which control over 80% of social media content and much of the self-created video content on the internet would be troubling enough, but by 2019, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon had joined the Christchurch Call which advocates not just banning terrorist material, but fighting its root causes by strengthening “inclusiveness” and fighting “violent extremism”.
To that end, the Dynamic Matrix of Extremisms and Terrorism (DMET) was deployed which goes through 4 different levels beginning with “partisanship” and ending with terrorism. DMET defines the initial levels of violent extremism as using “dehumanizing language” which can be described as nearly any criticism of a group.
Big Tech has built its own matrix. And we’re all in it.
As O’Neil documented the resulting “matrix” is a dangerous and bizarre list which classifies Sinn Fein and the Scottish National Party, alongside NARAL and “Anti-Vaxxers” as partisans on the first level of DMET. It’s unclear what a top anti-abortion group, the ruling leftist party of Scotland, the political face for the IRA, and opponents of vaccination have in common, but out of such confusingly disparate material, Big Tech has built its censorship matrix.
At the second level, alongside Neo-Nazi groups like Combat 18, the Bundy Family (a family, not an organization) and the Animal Liberation Front, which actually is a terrorist organization, is Jihad Watch.
The respected counterterrorism blog by historian and researcher Robert Spencer and his associates (I have been among them) has been an invaluable resource for chronicling Islamic terrorism and colonialism and represents the opposite of violent extremism.
As Robert Spencer wrote on Jihad Watch, “This is pure libel. We have never advocated or approved of any violence or any illegal activity of any kind.”
The DMET is just a more sophisticated pseudoscientific database of the kind that the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose materials have contributed to it, has deployed over the years.
One such database listed my blog, Sultan Knish, as a hate group, alongside a brand of gun oil, and a bar sign in Pennsylvania. These databases may have a Kafkaesque absurdity, but the consequences to lives, livelihoods, and careers are all too real with my blog showing up on the Color of Change list pressuring Big Tech monopolies to cut off funding and access to my site, as well as Jihad Watch, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and many other conservative groups.
Big Tech companies have begun building their own databases in coordination with governments. And these secret databases determine who has access to the public square of the internet, who can earn a living, and who ends up being deplatformed and unpersoned.
“If we are ‘extremist,’ so is the U.S. Constitution, for we are trying to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law,” Robert Spencer wrote. But DMET, GFICT, and other interfaces between governments and tech monopolies aren’t using the Constitution. They’re censoring based on United Nations law.
When Facebook’s Oversight Board issued its verdict on censoring President Trump, it did not list a single item of United States law, including the First Amendment, but cited the Rabat Plan of Action, and articles of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
GFICT’s DMET matrix cites the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court to declare that preventing “dehumanization” is an “imperative under international law”. Like Facebook’s decision to censor the former president, there’s no mention of the Constitution, but international law is repeatedly cited. Most disturbingly, a GFICT attempt to define terrorism collates a variety of definitions including attacks “against social cohesion” which the UN itself has noted is used to censor speech and political opponents as well as efforts to suppress Mohammed cartoons.
Tier 4 of the Content Taxonomy for what gets censored by Big Tech includes only one example targeting a group: “fear of Muslims is rational” thereby essentially banning most counterrorism, advocacy against unlimited immigration as well the Trump political campaign.
While Americans slept, Big Tech adopted UN standards to eliminate the Constitution.
Big Tech monopolies are no longer just enforcing local laws, moderating content in America or in the European Union based on the different standards in each country, instead all speech on the major platforms is being policed in line with the United Nations and its “international law”.
No black helicopters or blue helmets were needed. United Nations law came to the United States through the Big Tech monopolies that we turned over our speech and economy too.
Facebook now censors a former president in line with UN regulations. And censors all of us too.
GFICT is another example of UN regulations controlling our speech. We’re all drones living in the UN’s “Matrix” now as companies more powerful than governments impose international law.
Big Tech’s censorship matrix targets Robert Spencer and critics of Islam because censorship of dissenting religious views has been a longtime project of Islamic groups within the UN.
“They have all the power, and they mean to shut down dissent, and that means our days here are numbered,” Robert Spencer wrote. How long will it be until Did Muhammad Exist?Did An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins, the newly revised and expanded version of Spencer’s classic work, is censored the way that Amazon, which dominates the ebook market, suppressed Ryan T. Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.
Libertarians and some establishment conservatives keep protesting that private companies have the right to censor whom they please. But the UN is the opposite of a private company.
When massive monopolies act in concert with governments and multinational alliances, like the EU and the UN, to eliminate free speech in line with UN international law, that’s not private action. If we don’t have the courage to confront the ‘matrix’ of big governments and Big Tech, of Google and the UN, or Amazon and the EU, we will lose our rights, our identity, and our nation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2021-08-07 06:06:162021-10-07 20:21:17Big Tech is Censoring Americans Using United Nations Law
So since I watch terrorists, I’ve been watching myself. My latest in FrontPage:
As the director of Jihad Watch, I have an ongoing interest in the activities of violent extremists, and have been tracking those activities daily for eighteen years now. But now, in their benevolence, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube have made it easier than ever with their Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT): all I have to do is look in the mirror.
The GIFCT means to wipe out the groups it targets. Tyler O’Neil explains at PJ Media that GIFCT “shares terrorism data among Big Tech companies, enabling them to flag and remove terrorist content,” and is stepping up these operations: “On Monday, GIFCT announced that it significantly expanded the types of extremist content in its database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias.”
It’s about time, right? Those white supremacists and far-right militias have been rioting with impunity in Portland, and Seattle, and – oh, wait, that was the noble ideological heirs of the heroes of World War II. But we don’t have to guess who they have in mind: the GIFCT offers a helpful list of the dangerous groups from which it is going to save us.
At the highest level, Level 3, are the groups GIFCT classifies as actual bloodthirsty, grade-A certified dangerous terrorists: Boogaloo Boys, Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist Network, Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, even the Irish Republican Army. But that’s not all that the intrepid warriors of the GIFCT are going after. Once you’ve reached Level 3, the problem has advanced way too far, anyway. The GIFCT aims to nip terrorism in the bud by also targeting Level 2, “Violent Extremism,” which includes groups that are just below terrorist group status, but moving up the charts with a bullet: Blood & Honour, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and…Jihad Watch.
Perhaps even more surprising than the inclusion of Jihad Watch on this list is the fact that Antifa is also listed at Level 2. The likelihood of the social media giants moving in on Antifa is about as likely as Nancy Pelosi being Trump’s running mate in 2024, but it does help put things in perspective. Antifa has been openly calling for and applauding violence in cities all over the country, and as far as the counter-terror “experts” at the GIFCT are concerned, they’re on par with an organization that is dedicated to tracking jihad terror activity and elucidating its motivating ideology. Unlike Antifa, neither I nor Jihad Watch has ever called for or approved of any violence or illegal activity of any kind. But another way we differ from Antifa is that establishment media stooges aren’t falling all over themselves likening us to the men (you may remember what those were) who stormed the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944. The likelihood that Jihad Watch will be targeted for being on the GIFCT’s list, and Antifa given another pass, is about 100%.
On the morning I found out that I was a violent extremist, I discovered that violent extremists sometimes enjoy a bit of yogurt for breakfast, try to fit in a good long walk, and spend a lot of the day typing. It was a bit more sedentary, and definitely filled with less death-defying adventure, than I expected for an official “violent extremist.” With all the time I sit here facing this infernal machine, the GIFCT may think I’m at work on my “manifesto,” for they say they’re going to make sure that “Manifestos from terrorist and violent extremist attackers” are removed from the Internet, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be intensely scrutinized, for “a wide range of experts on expanding the reach and impact of our hash-sharing database’s taxonomy in order to respond to terrorist content online across the ideological spectrum.”
Hey, great. Let me start you folks off on the right foot. Here’s my Manifesto, GIFCT, straight from one of your designated “violent extremists.” Get your experts on this, and make sure they study it carefully. Ready? Here it is:
You. People. Are. Nuts.
That’s it. You like it? It took me months to get the precise formulation of my “violent extremist” ideas. And just because I have so much respect for your violent extremist-hunting prowess, GIFCT wonks, here’s a bonus. Here’s what I want for America and the world: the freedom of speech. The freedom of conscience. The equality of rights of all people before the law.
Yeah, I know that messes with you Communists’ sugar-plum visions of racial strife, civil war, and the dissolution of America as a unitary nation-state. And that may be the clue to all of this madness. Violent extremists and their enablers want to make sure they have a free hand, and one strategy to get it was delineated in the Marxists’ tested-and-true playbook: accuse your enemy of that which you’re guilty of doing. Could it be that my organization been designated a violent extremist group because some people have a bit of violent extremism planned and want to make sure that anyone who might speak out against them is silenced and cleared away?
Stranger things have happened. Meanwhile, if I disappear from the net, and from the streets, someday soon, you’ll know that the good folks at the GIFCT have done their job. One less violent extremist will be menacing the rest of us. And we will all be able to breathe a sigh of relief over that. Won’t we?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2021-08-05 03:52:492021-10-07 20:21:23The Social Media Giants Find A Violent Extremist: Me
“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?” one message reads. “We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.”
The message also provides a button to “Get Support,” which leads to another Facebook page about extremism.
Redstate editor Kira Davis, who said was sent a screenshot of the message from a friend, wrote: “Hey has anyone had this message pop up on their FB? My friend (who is not an ideologue but hosts lots of competing chatter) got this message twice. He’s very disturbed.”
And others reported getting a warning that they may have been “exposed to harmful extremist content recently.” The message then states that “violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment,” similarly offering a “Get Support” option.
“Facebook randomly sent me this notice about extremism when I clicked over to the app. Pretty weird. … The Get Support button just goes to a short article asking people not to be hateful,” another user on Twitter wrote.
A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times on July 1 that the company is currently running the warnings as a test to some users.
“This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk. We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future,” the spokesperson said, without elaborating.
Hey has anyone had this message pop up on their FB? My friend (who is not an ideologue but hosts lots of competing chatter) got this message twice. He’s very disturbed. pic.twitter.com/LjCMjCvZtS
The messages come after lawmakers have repeatedly targeted and pressured CEOs of big tech firms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft, essentially accusing them of allowing “extremism,” misinformation, and cyberbullying on their platforms. Such social media companies have faced criticism from Republicans who have accused them of censoring conservative voices and limiting the reach—or outright blocking—content that portrays Democrat political figures in a negative light.
Conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, have argued for the revocation of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which serves as a liability shield for online publishers. However, the movement to rein in Big Tech was dealt a blow earlier this week when a federal judge tossed a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Facebook that had accused the firm of engaging in anti-competitive practices.
These warning messages, however, are sure to trigger even more negative feedback against Facebook and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, over fears that the company is attempting to stifle free speech. On Twitter, as screenshots of the warning messages were being shared en masse on July 1, many users expressed concern over the direction Facebook is taking.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2021-07-03 06:31:312021-10-07 20:23:46OPPRESSION: Facebook Now Sending Messages to Some Users Asking About ‘Extremist’ Friends