Posts

BREAKING: New Facebook Insider Leaks Video of Zuckerberg and Executives

Project Veritas released a new video today leaked by a Brave Facebook Insider exposing CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitting to the company’s willingness to promote a partisan political agenda.

Here are some of the highlights from today’s videos:

  • Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO: “I know this is just a very difficult moment for a lot of us here [at Facebook], and especially our black colleagues. It was troubling to see how people in this [Capitol] mob were treated compared to the stark contrast we saw during [Black Lives Matter] protests earlier this [past] year.”
  • Zuckerberg: “President Biden already issued a number of Executive Orders on areas that we as a company care quite deeply about and have for some time.”
  • Zuckerberg: “The swearing in of Vice President Harris really stands as a reminder that despite the challenges that we are facing as a country, we all have so much to be proud of.”
  • Roy Austin, Facebook VP of Civil Rights: “I want every major decision to run through a civil rights lens.”
  • Nick Clegg, Facebook Head of Global Affairs: “There has been quite a lot of disquiet expressed by many leaders around the world…ideally we wouldn’t be making these [censorship] decisions on our own, we would be making these decisions in line with our own conformity, with democratically agreed rules and principles. At the moment, those democratically agreed rules don’t exist. We still have to make decisions in real-time.”

You can watch the short video here:

You can watch the long raw videos here:

How can Facebook users trust that they are using a “neutral” platform when the company’s CEO is praising a political party’s agenda?

Does Facebook as an organization stand by Zuckerberg’s partisan views?

The Brave Facebook Insider is still embedded within the organization and will keep us informed of further wrongdoing in the future.

To become an Insider, contact us via Signal: 914-653-3110

And make sure to share these videos with your friends and family!

Stay Tuned.

©Project Veritas. All rights reserved.

Zuckerberg Funds Used To Pay Pennsylvania Judges Overseeing Ballot Counts

HARRISBURG, Pa./PRNewswire/ — Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit have filed a motion seeking a restraining order to block the use of private funds from billionaire Mark Zuckerberg for use in local election management, a statutory responsibility of state officials including the Pennsylvania Legislature.

VIEW FEDERAL LAWSUIT BY AMISTAD PROJECT PDF

The motion, filed on October 19 in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, highlights how a grant for $10 million from the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) explicitly requires the City of Philadelphia to open no fewer than 800 new polling places – and failing to do so may require the City to forfeit the grant money. The funding from Mark Zuckerberg also pays for judges to oversee ballot counts and the outcome of disputes that arise regarding the eligibility of ballots in the election.

“The Center for Technology and Civic Life is using Mark Zuckerberg’s millions to require the City of Philadelphia to open 800 new election offices and hire judges who will oversee ballot counts and rule on ballot disputes based on their own admission in court documents,” said Tom King, the legal counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case. “Municipal leaders have ceded their role as a local authority to CTCL with powers that rightfully belong to the people of Pennsylvania through their representatives in Harrisburg by effectively inviting this partisan billionaire into the ballot counting room,” he concluded.

“We are fighting Mark Zuckerberg around the country where he is using CTCL, a nonprofit founded and managed by Obama-affiliated operatives, to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to leftist strongholds in several battleground states to determine the outcome of the election,” said Phill Kline, Director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, which is supporting the litigation. “This is a scheme engineered by partisan activists under the guise of COVID-related support. The privatization of the election undermines the integrity of the election,” he added.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in the case, the Pennsylvania Voters Alliance and several officeholders and candidates, previously filed a complaint against Centre CountyDelaware County, and the City of Philadelphia, and Secretary of the Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaKathy Boockvar, in Civil Action No.: 4:20−CV−01761−MWB.

The grants to Philadelphia and the counties are part of a $350 million contribution by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, which is being funneled into leftist strongholds selectively in several swing states to turnout voters for liberal politicians. This strategy may tilt the results of the presidential election in the most critical battleground states in the nation, including Pennsylvania.

The Thomas More Society, a not-for-profit public interest law firm, is providing financial support for litigation in numerous federal cases seeking to block Mark Zuckerberg’s blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

For more information on this and related issues, go to got-freedom.org.

©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Facebook Is The Enemy of Truth

Ezra Levant speaks with whistleblower who busts Facebook for censoring material which affects elections, even in Canada.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Glenn Beck: Fooled by Facebook?

In the wake of reports that Facebook censors conservative voices, media figure Glenn Beck met with company chairman Mark Zuckerberg and emerged from the meeting, as he put it, “convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Nothing to see here, move along. Unfortunately, this is nonsense.

Beck admits in his article on this subject, “I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms.” Neither am I. But the Facebook censorship in the news isn’t about artificial intelligence but human intelligence — and its biases. In fact, the focus on technology could be (I’m not implying this is the case with Beck) an effort at Machiavellian misdirection: “Watch what the machine is doing, watch the machine, so you don’t see the man behind the curtain.

I’ll get right to the point. Fraudbook employs a group of young journalists, known as “news curators,” who are empowered to manage the algorithmic results and “refine” what qualifies for the site’s “Trending Topics” section. As company vice president of search Tom Stocky put it, the curators “audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources.”

So already evident is a Fraudbook deception: the Trending Topics section is supposed to reflect “popularity,” not politically correctness. Who decides what constitute “real world events”? What is a “junk” topic and who defines such? Should “duplicate topics” be disregarded if that duplication reflects trends and popularity? Why should “insufficient sources” disqualify a story, given that great breakthroughs — in science and news — often begin with one person’s endeavors? (When the story becomes well known, or “popular,” other journalists investigate the matter and separate fact from fiction; this can’t happen if it’s suppressed in the first place.) And while no one wants hoaxes promoted, we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.

And who are these people empowered to decide who is an unreal-world, junky, topic-duplicating, insufficiently-sourced, possible hoaxer? Gizmodo.com, which broke the recent Fraudbook story, tells us they are “a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the ‘trending’ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.”  LOL, c’mon, Glenn, are you gonna let these people spit down your back and tell you it’s rainin’? While tech workers are notoriously liberal, as the statistics here show, journalism majors from “Ivy League or private East Coast universities” make them look like William F. Buckley2. Fact: giving people the power to “refine” news is synonymous with human bias entering the equation.

And you cannot give young, hardcore liberal journalists from “elite” schools that power without a strong liberal bias entering the equation.

Of course, the nature of biases is that people generally aren’t aware, at least not fully, of their biases. Just consider a Guardian defense of Fraudbook. The news organ interviewed an ex-Fraudbook curator who challenged Gizmodo’s report and related, writes the paper, “that newsworthiness was determined by how often a story appeared on a list of trusted news outlets including this publication [the Guardian], the New York Times and the BBC.” Are you getting this, Glenn?

That the ex-employee and Guardian consider this exculpatory of Fraudbook tells the tale: they’re so oblivious to their own biases they consider left-wing, mainstream-media news sources “unbiased” arbiters of newsworthiness. Obviously, if you use leftist entities to “refine” your algorithmic results, you’ll get Al Gore-rhythmic results.

So as Gizmodo put it, “In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.” Without a doubt. Liberal journalists censoring the news? Check. Institutional guidelines elevating supposed real-world events and disqualifying supposed junk? Check. Reliance upon other left-wing sources to determine real-world quality, junkiness and newsworthiness, creating a liberal echo chamber? Check. Fraudbook’s trending team couldn’t be more like a traditional newsroom if it tried.

So while a selling point of big social media is that it’s a democratic arena in which “the people” determine what’s seen and heard, it’s instead more like professional wrestling circa 1980: certainly fake but still claiming authenticity. Of course, Fraudbook has a right (at least under our system, as opposed to the statist one Zuckerberg is working to visit upon us) to adopt whatever policies it wishes. But how about some truth in advertising? Don’t claim to be presenting merely what’s “popular.”

Beck should also note that Fraudbook has been caught censoring news time and again. As the Gatestone Institute wrote in February, “It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.” Even more damning, at a UN development summit in New York in September, Zuckerberg met with German chancellor Angela Merkel. “As they sat down,” continued Gatestone, “Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.”

And I’m sure Merkel would describe Zuckerberg as someone who was “humble, open, and listened intently,” which, by the way, are the precise words Beck used to describe the Fraudbook figures (including Zuck) he met with. Zuck told Merkel what she wanted to hear, which happened to be the truth; and Zuck told Beck what he wanted to hear, which happened to not be. Zuck is concerned about making money and Fraudbook’s stock price, you see.

Having said this, I doubt Zuck is fully aware of the news curators’ shenanigans. Again, people, liberals especially, are often blithely unaware of emotionally satisfying biases woven into organizations. Stories of Fraudbook censorship of conservatives are legion, however. And while it involves not censorship but an effort at undermining, I have one myself.

Aside from my syndicated pieces, I write exclusive news/commentary articles for The New American (TNA), which has both a website and hard-copy magazine. And as many sites do, TNA has Fraudbook’s “Like” button at the top of every article; it indicates how many Fraudbook users read, liked the piece and chose to click the button. Well, for more than a year and ending only about a year ago, I and members of TNA’s staff noticed a strange and consistent phenomenon: likes would accumulate on a piece and then “poof!” they’d disappear with the counter having been dialed back to zero. This happened consistently across all TNA articles; in one case, one of my pieces had 30,000 likes before they were sent to the gulag.

One might consider this a glitch, but I never observed the phenomenon at any liberal/mainstream-media site. And why does it matter? Because likes are a good metric for not just popularity but also level of readership, and people are influenced by what’s popular. Make an article’s content appear unread and unpopular and people are more likely to dismiss it as a fringe view.

I always assumed, and this accords with Gizmodo’s findings, that the like-button manipulation was the work of one or two rogue (and petty) employees — who were operating in a liberal organization that would turn a blind eye to such shenanigans. Yet Beck’s thoughts are different. In a further glowing endorsement of Fraudbook, he was quoted in a May 19 Time piece as saying about his meeting with the company’s representatives, “I thought it was great. I thought they were sincere. And as I was leaving, I thought: ‘What company has done that with conservatives?’ Especially a media company.” That’s what he thought, alright. And here’s what I think: that Facebook has two faces, and one of them is seen only by big names that Zuck et al. can use for photo-ops and public-relations purposes.

And that’s likely what happened with you, Mr. Beck. You found Zuck and Company cordial — they just find you useful.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Mark Zuckerberg is promoting the Queerest of Folks on Facebook

Facebook has over 1.23 billion users of which 945 million are mobile users with 757 million daily users. There are many families that use Facebook to share photos, videos and leave updates about their lives. A companies culture is determined by its CEO and Mark Zuckerberg is no exception. His stand on various issues is well known and his relationship with President Obama is well publicized.

Zuckerberg appears to be concerned about NSA spying using his platform and has said so publicly and privately to President Obama. However, while they may disagree on who is better at spying on individuals, the NSA or Facebook, Obama and Zuck agree on one thing — gay is good. Zuck 4 gays may be the best way to describe his embracing of the homosexual lifestyle.

facebook gay logoZuck is so pro-homosexual that he is actively reaching out to and promoting the queerest of folks on Facebook in the United States and United Kingdom.

 from the UK Telegraph in her article “Facebook’s 71 gender options come to UK users: Following its successful integration in the US, US Facebook users can choose from one of 50 gender options” writes:

UK Facebook users can now choose from one of 71 gender options, including asexual, polygender and two-spirit person, following the feature’s successful integration in the US.

Users can choose a different gender option from the previous male and female choices by selecting ‘custom’ in the gender tab of their profiles.

In addition, people who select a custom gender will now have the ability to choose the pronoun they’d like to be referred to publicly — male (he/his), female (she/her) or neutral (they/their).

Talking about gender is like talking about nature. There are only two genders, however, there are many forms of sexual behaviors and Zuck is tapping into that market. “Facebook worked with UK groups Press for Change and Gendered Intelligence to add 21 new options to ensure the list best reflected the ways UK users may choose to describe themselves,” notes Williams. Twenty-one new options on how to describe themselves? Really?

Let’s look at a few options that are so queer that they defy description: Female to male trans man, Female to male transgender man, Female to male transsexual man, F2M, Gender neutral and Hermaphrodite. To read the full list click here.

The Brits have many ways of describing a homosexual. Understanding this, there are some options that Zuck and his UK Facebook team may want to consider adding to the list: Bugger, BugR, Bugger2Bugger or the short form B2B (not to be confused with Business2Business unless one is giving the business to his/her M2F or F2M partner), Queer Mary or QM, F2F (you fill in the f-word of your choice), HomoUK, UKHomo and of course one of my favorites from Mel Brookssmuck“. You get the idea.

Ayn Rand warned,

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Zuck is queering Facebook. Parents, families and the 98.4% of straight users in the U.S. beware. He is pandering to the 1.6% in the U.S. who are homosexuals.

Zuck recently friended us on Facebook. Let’s see if he unfriends us.

RELATED VIDEO: Before you share photos online, watch this video —

RELATED ARTICLES:

530 Fatties: Facebook Page Targeted Overweight, Obese Yuba-Sutter Residents « CBS Sacramento
See How Changing Your Gender In Alaska Is As Easy As Counting To Three

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Mark Zuckerberg marching with 700 Facebook employees in the 2013 San Francisco gay pride parade is by Mike Matas/Facebook.

Is Facebook censoring conservative content?

Recently I sat down with our website editor, Michele Hickford, to discuss social media analytics and recurring trends in order for us to better address the issues that matter most to our readers.

She looked at best performing stories, posts, and numbers of comments. We noticed there has been a precipitous decline in views and shares of individual stories in the first week of March on Facebook. The issue is that Facebook manipulates what stories show up in users’ news feeds. So if no one sees our stories, they don’t get read.

Of course in one year we went from about 197,000 to over 925,000 page “likes” overall. But you just have to wonder if someone at the Zuckerberg empire is regulating our traffic – is Facebook censoring conservative content? What’s curious about this is many of our fellow members of the Liberty Alliance are having the same issue.

So during my morning run, some thoughts and perspectives ran through my mind.

There is no debate that I am a strong conservative in my political ideology and governing principles. I believe wholeheartedly in the free marketplace of ideas where ingenuity and innovation thrive.

However, it seems the success of our Facebook page is being seen as a lucrative revenue source that Facebook wants a piece of. What I find so perplexing is that Facebook bubba Zuckerberg is a pretty cozy fella with President Obama — the most anti-free market president we have ever seen, a true progressive socialist.

So why is it that Zuckerberg — and let’s be honest, any business person, — jumps in bed with liberal progressives? If Zuckerberg is looking to make a profit off the endeavors of my conservative Facebook page, doesn’t that go contrary to the political crowd in which he circulates? I always found it ironic that someone like Michael Moore would say capitalism sucks, yet he charges money for people to see his movies — hypocritical?

So let’s see here, Mark Zuckerberg now wants to make more money off a conservative Facebook page so he can make more money to donate to more liberal progressive causes and candidates. So they can espouse their anti-free market ideology and expand the welfare nanny-state and cause my taxes to increase in order to pay for more “free stuff.”

Why shouldn’t we be able to utilize the Facebook traffic for free? After all, isn’t that the center of the progressive socialist mentality — shared prosperity and economic equality and all that?

The only other explanation for what we’re seeing with our Facebook page would be a blatant attempt to censor our message and limit its promulgation — and that wouldn’t be nice, Mark.

The hypocrisy of liberals seems to have no end. They like to make money, but apparently they want to limit who else gets to earn a prosperous living. It’s like the old Soviet politburo establishment where the ruling elite lived under the mantra of “do as we say, not as we do.”

Liberal progressives accept certain elites in their sphere, such as entertainment and sports figures, but not us saps out here just working hard to make a living. I applaud what Facebook has done and the platform it has created. And I certainly wouldn’t want to limit innovators seeking to better their business model and make a profit.

But I do wonder if Facebook throttles back traffic to the Obama social media machine, or is that all gratis since they share the same failed socialist beliefs? And if it is given preferential treatment, does that run afoul of campaign finance laws?

The liberal Left controls the message of the mainstream media, no question about it. Thank goodness conservative voices have alternative ways to disseminate our message through radio, cable and satellite networks, social media, podcasts and on our websites.

But there is also no question the liberal Left will do whatever it takes to strangle our free speech when it conflicts with the progressive agenda.

Mr. Zuckerberg, you believe in the First Amendment, don’t you? They may come after us first, but they’ll be after you too. Think about that next time you’re at one of those swanky liberal cocktail parties, little bro.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.