Censorship Upgrade: Facebook Testing Burying Posts From News Outlets And Businesses In 6 Countries Unless They Pay

Aaron Kesel
Activist Post

Facebook is currently testing a change that would force news publishers to pay to show their posts from their Facebook Pages in the timeline of Facebook users in an effort disguised to fight “fake news.”

In the test, pages are now shown in a separate Explore tab, while the main timeline only shows posts from friends, ads, and posts that companies have paid to promote, Business Insider reported.

If the change goes global, other businesses may be affected as well. Essentially what Facebook is trying to do is have users who want to use its “Business Profiles” be charged for promoting their content. Additionally, the “upgrade” would affect public figures and other organizations which have a Facebook page such as local kids’ sports teams, high school pages, or nonprofit charities.

Posts from friends who post a news article are not affected by the change, it is strictly “Business Profiles.”

The test is currently active for people in six countries: Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Slovakia, Serbia, Guatemala, and Cambodia with no plans to roll out globally, according to a spokesperson who spoke with Business Insider.

Before the “fake news” debacle, Facebook was censoring users and their speech on its platform; the social media giant even went as far as to suspend the account of Russia Today, Moscow’s English news outlet, before President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The suspension was later lifted within 24 hours but it’s the fact they even tried to censor a news outlet and played gatekeeper to information akin to the Ministry of Truth.

RT was mentioned in the infamous “Russian hacking report” for influencing the U.S. election.

A former Facebook employee once confessed to the abhorrent censorship of conservative news at the company. The nail in the coffin was actually placed in 2015 when Facebook admitted that they were censoring posts and comments about political corruption in foreign countries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) responded accused Facebook of being “complicit in political censorship.” Facebook is not new to censorship, and this will likely continue.

“As governments grow aware of the fact that stifling speech is as easy as submitting an order to a corporation, the number of those orders will drastically increase,” the EFF wrote.

Independent news organizations like Activist Post receive significant traffic from the communities they have built at Facebook. Along with Google’s search engine (SEO), Facebook’s algorithms can have a detrimental impact, and in recent months we all have noticed the downward spiral of traffic in our reach as the Chicago Tribune reported in a Medium post.

Help keep the white rabbit around – bookmark Activist Post and join us on our mailing list to follow the white rabbit down the hole. The truth is stranger than fiction.

Advertisements

Europe: Journalists Against Free Speech

Judith Bergman
Gatesstone Institute


  • Gone is all pretense that journalism is about reporting the facts. These are the aims of a political actor.
  • Being bought and paid for by the EU apparently counts as “press freedom” these days.
  • According to the guidelines, journalists should, among other things, “Provide an appropriate range of opinions, including those belonging to migrants and members of minorities, but… not… extremist perspectives just to ‘show the other side’…. Don’t allow extremists’ claims about acting ‘in the name of Islam’ to stand unchallenged…. where it is necessary and newsworthy to report hateful comments against Muslims, mediate the information.”

The European Federation of Journalists (EJF), “the largest organization of journalists in Europe, represents over 320,000 journalists in 71 journalists’ organizations across 43 countries,” according to its website. The EJF, a powerful player, also leads a Europe-wide campaign called “Media against Hate.”

The “Media against Hate” campaign aims to:

“counter hate speech[1] and discrimination in the media, both on and offline… media and journalists play a crucial role in informing…policy … regarding migration and refugees. As hate speech and stereotypes targeting migrants proliferate across Europe… #MediaAgainstHate campaign aims to: improve media coverage related to migration, refugees, religion and marginalised groups… counter hate speech, intolerance, racism and discrimination… improve implementation of legal frameworks regulating hate speech and freedom of speech…”

Gone is all pretense that journalism is about reporting the facts. These are the aims of a political actor.

A very large political actor is, in fact, involved in the “Media against Hate” campaign. The campaign is one of several media programs supported by the EU under its Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (REC). In the REC program for 2017, the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, writes:

“DG Justice and Consumers [the EU Commission’s justice department] will address the worrying increase of hate crime and hate speech by allocating funding to actions aiming at preventing and combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance… including dedicated work in the area of countering online hate speech (implementation of the Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online)… DG Justice also funds civil society organisations combatting racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance”.

This political player, the EU, the biggest in Europe, works openly at influencing the “free press” with its own political agendas. One of these agendas is the issue of migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. In his September State of the Union address, the president of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, made it clear that whatever Europeans may think — polls repeatedly show that the majority of Europeans do not want any more migrants — the EU has no intention of putting a stop to migration. “Europe,” Juncker said, “contrary to what some say, is not a fortress and must never become one. Europe is and must remain the continent of solidarity where those fleeing persecution can find refuge”.

The European Union’s REC Program also recently financed the publication of a handbook with guidelines for journalists on how to write about migrants and migration. The guidelines form part of the RESPECT WORDS project — also EU-financed — which “aims to promote quality reporting on migrants and ethnic and religious minorities as an indispensable tool in the fight against hate”. The new guidelines are “aimed at strengthening quality media coverage of migrants and ethnic and religious minorities”. The handbook was launched on October 12 by the International Press Institute (IPI) — an association of media professionals” representing leading digital, print and broadcast news outlets in more than 120 countries. IPI boasts that it has been “defending press freedom since 1950”. (Being bought and paid for by the EU apparently counts as “press freedom” these days.) Seven other European media outlets and civil society groups based in Europe participated in the project and presented it at an event at the European Parliament in Brussels attended by MEPs and civil society experts. According to the press release, the guidelines are “supplementary to standards already in place at news outlets”.

The guidelines state that, “journalism cannot and should not ‘solve’ the problem of hate speech on its own” but that it can help to prevent its “normalisation”. However, “meeting this challenge requires the involvement of many actors, in particular the European Union, which must reinforce existing mechanisms and support new tools designed to combat hate speech…”

Why do journalists, who claim to fight for the freedom of the press, now appeal to the EU to help bring an end to freedom of speech in Europe?

According to the guidelines, journalists should, among other things:

“Provide an appropriate range of opinions, including those belonging to migrants and members of minorities, but… not… extremist perspectives just to ‘show the other side’… Avoid directly reproducing hate speech; when it is newsworthy to do so, mediate it by…challenging such speech, and exposing any false premises it relies on. Remember that sensitive information (eg race and ethnicity, religious or philosophical beliefs, party affiliation or union affiliation, health and sexual information) should only be mentioned when it is necessary for the public’s understanding of the news”.

Continue reading

G7, tech giants agree on plan to block jihadist content online

AFP

Ischia (Italy) (AFP) – G7 countries and tech giants including Google, Facebook and Twitter on Friday agreed to work together to block the dissemination of Islamist extremism over the internet.

“These are the first steps towards a great alliance in the name of freedom,” Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti said after a two-day meeting with his Group of Seven counterparts, stressing the role of the internet in extremist “recruitment, training and radicalisation.”

French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb said the goal was to ensure pro-jihadist content “is taken down within two hours of it going online.”

“Our enemies are moving at the speed of a tweet and we need to counter them just as quickly,” acting US Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke said. Continue reading

DHS Chief: Tech Firms Must Act Quicker To Remove Extremist Propaganda

Activist Post

The acting U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke has called on Silicon Valley to remove extremist content, Reuters reported.

The United States and Britain are set to push social media firms to deal with the problem at a G7 meeting of interior ministers this week, Duke told reporters in London where she had been meeting British Home Secretary (interior minister), Amber Rudd.

“There has been a shift and for us somewhat with the Charlottesville incident,” she said. “There are a lot of social pressures and they want do business so they really have to balance between keeping their user agreements and giving law enforcement what they need.” Continue reading

Google, Tech Giants Threaten To Shut Down “Free Speech’ Social Site

Jamie White
Infowars

Search engine giant Google and other tech platforms have threatened to shut down free-speech social media site Gab in the name of fighting “hate speech.”

Gab, a social media platform known as a free speech oasis, was just recently ordered to transfer their Australian domain elsewhere or face shutdown.

“Gab’s domain registrar has given us 5 days to transfer our domain or they will seize it. The free and open web is in danger,” the website tweeted.

Asia Registry is poised to shut down the pro-1st Amendment website because it claims Gab “violates Australian federal and state anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit public vilification on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic origin,” and accuses the website of being “discriminatory and hateful.”

Google has already booted Gab off the Google Play store, also citing violations of their “hate speech policies,” which has prompted Gab to sue the tech giant for violating anti-trust laws.

“Google is the biggest threat to the free flow of information,” Gab chief executive Andrew Torba said in a statement.

“Gab started to fight against the big tech companies in the marketplace, and their monopolistic conduct has forced us to bring the fight to the courtroom.”

Gab alleges in the lawsuit that “Google deprives competitors, on a discriminatory basis, of access to the App Store, which an essential facility or resource.”

Google fired back, calling the lawsuit “baseless” and asserting that Gab needed “to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people,” to use the Play Store.

As we reported, Google has been caught censoring information on numerous occasions, and has even admitted to censoring Infowars despite providing no evidence of “hate speech.”

 

DOWN THE ‘TUBEYouTube accused of CENSORSHIP over controversial new bid to ‘limit’ access to videos

Jasper Hamill
UK Sun

YOUTUBE has been accused of censorship after introducing a controversial new policy designed to reduce the audience for videos deemed to be “inappropriate or offensive to some audiences”.

The Google-owned video site is now putting videos into a “limited state” if they are deemed controversial enough to be considered objectionable, but not hateful, pornographic or violent enough to be banned altogether.

This policy was announced several months ago but has come into force in the past week, prompting anger among members of the YouTube community.

The Sun Online understands Google and YouTube staff refer to the tactic as “tougher treatment”.

One prominent video-maker slammed the new scheme whilst WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange described the measures as “economic censorship”.

However, YouTube sees it as a way of maintaining freedom of speech and allowing discussion of controversial issues without resorting to the wholesale banning of videos.

Videos which are put into a limited state cannot be embedded on other websites.

They also cannot be easily published on social media using the usual share buttons and other users cannot comment on them.

Crucially, the person who made the video will no longer receive any payment.

Earlier this week, Julian Assange wrote: “‘Controversial‘ but contract-legal videos [which break YouTube’s terms and conditions] cannot be liked, embedded or earn [money from advertising revenue].

“What’s interesting about the new method deployed is that it is a clear attempt at social engineering. It isn’t just turning off the ads.

“It’s turning off the comments, embeds, etc too.

“Everything possible to strangle the reach without deleting it.”

Criticism of YouTube‘s policies is most acute among people on the right of the political spectrum, who fear that Silicon Valley is dominated by the left and determined to silence opposing voices – a claim denied by tech giants like Facebook and Google.

The new YouTube rules were highlighted this week by Paul Joseph Watson, a globally famous British right wing YouTuber and editor-at-large of Infowars, who spoke out after saying a guest on his online show had one of her videos removed after the appearance.

The black female YouTuber, who uses the name RedPillBlack, made a video entitled “WTF? Black Lives Matter Has A List of Demands for White People!” in response to a member of the activist’s group calls for white people to “give up the home you own to a black or brown family“.

The video was part of a series which features an offensive racial term in its name, which we have decided not to publish, and criticises the BLM member’s statement point by point.

We watched her video and whilst it’s clear that many people might disagree with the political point she is making, the actual video did not appear to be offensive or gratuitous.

“Some people might watch the video and think I’m speaking out against black people,” she said in the video.

“But what I’m doing here is speaking up for black people.”

The video was allegedly banned but later reinstated following a series of tweets from Watson, which you can see below.

Read More

Bots flood government agency seeking comment from human beings

Tim Johnson
McClatchyDC via The Olympian

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday swam in a sea of nearly 22 million comments after a deadline passed for the public to offer opinions on an issue that could shape the internet for years to come.

But the comments may settle little. Millions of them appeared to come from robotic networks, or bots, and were the equivalent of spam mail.

The confusion generated by the fake comments left powerful telecommunications and cable companies battling with citizen advocacy groups over the true nature of public sentiment ahead of an open FCC meeting Sept. 28. Both sides said public opinion was on their side.

AT&T, the communications conglomerate, claimed that “most” of the 21.8 million comments sent to the FCC “appear to us to be fraudulent.”

“Millions of comments were generated using phony email addresses. Millions of others were generated using duplicative email or physical addresses. And still others originated overseas,” Joan Marsh, AT&T’s executive vice president of regulatory and state external affairs, wrote in a blog post.

She said that “nearly 450,000 comments were filed using Russian addresses.”

Once fake comments are weeded out, Marsh said, “the large majority of commenters” support the position of AT&T and other internet providers that could open the door to differential rates for consumers for the content they want on the internet.

At stake is a principle known as net neutrality that bars internet service providers from slowing down access to the internet, or forcing consumers and companies to pay more for certain types of web content.

Rules enforcing net neutrality were codified by the FCC in 2015 with strong support from then-President Barack Obama. Opponents describe it as overregulation and seek to repeal the 2-year-old rules.

Defenders of net neutrality say a rollback, as proposed by the Trump administration, could create a tiered system that would favor large internet players. They suggested that opponents may be behind the avalanche of fake comments in order to discredit the entire public airing process.

“I’ve seen a lot of dirty tricks out there,” said Timothy Karr, a senior director of Free Press, an advocacy group that supports the digital rights of internet users. He said filling the FCC mailbox with form letters and spam comments appeared to be part of a drive “to delegitimize every comment.”

A study of the FCC comments by a data company, Emprata, found that 19.4 million of the comments came from entities that filed multiple times, originated abroad or used techniques such as fake domain names typical of spam.

Emprata’s study, which was financed by Broadband for America, an industry group that represents major internet providers and cable companies, was done before the deadline for comments arrived midnight Wednesday.

The study found that some 1.77 million comments appeared to be legitimate, individually written submissions that supported keeping Obama-era rules in place, while 24,000 voiced support for repeal.

Karr asserted that 98.5 percent of those comments in support of net neutrality comprise “a very clear majority.”

Another defender of net neutrality, Jeffrey Chester, of the Center for Digital Democracy, said the Trump administration is determined to favor large internet players.

“They’ve kind of steeled themselves to ignore public opinion,” Chester said.

He said changes in viewing habits of consumers on handheld devices and away from cable television has put financial pressure on the large telecommunications and cable companies.

“This is a ‘Do or Die’ moment for the phone and cable industry,” Chester said.

One of the internet giants, Apple, waited till the final hours to file its comment, telling the FCC not to create “paid fast lanes” on the internet nor allow broadband companies to “block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services.” It said that repealing net neutrality rules could stifle innovation.

“Worst of all, it could allow a broadband provider, not the consumer, to pick internet winners and losers, based on a broadband provider’s priorities rather than the quality of the service,” Apple said.

How to regulate the internet has become a lightning rod issue for big players in the field. Reuters reported this week that a House committee canceled a Sept. 7 hearing on internet access rules after no major tech or telecom chief executives agreed to appear.

The comments to the FCC took a noticeable jump in May after John Oliver, on his HBO series “Last Week Tonight,” urged viewers to write into the FCC to support maintaining the net neutrality rules.

Image: The Federal Communications Commission, an agency with headquarters seen here in a June 2015 photo, allowed the public to comment on a proposed repeal of Obama-era regulation to ensure net neutrality. Instead, it got swamped in by comments from robotic networks, or bots. Andrew Harnik AP

The European Union Wants to Censor Hate Speech on Social Media

Scott Shackford|
Reason

In America, civil libertarians frequently have to remind citizens that there’s no “hate speech” exemption to the First Amendment. But our First Amendment doesn’t fly in Europe, and now the European Union (EU) may be about to mandate censorship rules for social media.

EU ministers today approved a plan that will require social media platforms and online video hosts to block and remove videos that contain “hate speech, incitement to hatred and content justifying terrorism from their platforms,” according to Reuters. For now at least, this just covers videos, not text, images, or livestreaming.

It’s not entirely clear whether Facebook or YouTube will have to censor videos posted by platform users in the United States to remain in compliance with the law. We do know that EU countries like Germany are just itching to levy huge fines—tens of millions of euros—on social media companies that haven’t been quick to suppress hate speech. That kind of pressure would certainly encourage a very broad censorship regime on the part of the companies.

The new rule has been in the works for a while—part of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, a set of commercial media regulations. In addition to ordering the censorship of content, the EU wants to dabble in cultural protectionism: The proposal approved today mandates that 30 percent of the content of streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime be from member countries. The recommendation was originally 20 percent, but EU ministers jacked it up.

This will be the EU’s first attempt to adopt this sort of platform censorship. If the European Parliament approves the regulations, don’t be surprised to see more.

Boston Herald calls for government-run execution squads to MASS MURDER naturopaths, scientists and journalists who oppose mercury in immunizations

Mike Adams
NaturalNews

In the latest lunatic, insane example of “vaccine rage” now being pushed by the criminal vaccine industry and its corporate-run media prostitutes, the Boston Herald’s entire editorial staff has openly called for what are essentially government-run execution squads to mass murder scientists, naturopaths, chiropractors and journalists who question the safety of injecting children with mercury, a brain-damaging toxin still found in flu shot vaccines administered to children and expectant mothers.

Expressing any concern at all about the toxic, brain-damaging ingredients in vaccines “ought to be a hanging offense,” says the entire Boston Herald editorial staff in this shockingly violent article which espouses the murder of naturopathic physicians and scientists such as myself. According to the Boston herald, we should all be hanged to death after being identified and rounded up. Continue reading

BIG BROTHER: Top Soros Henchman Calls for Government-Run Social Media in Order to Stop InfoWars & Breitbart

Ralph Retort

Ethan Zuckerman is a name you might not be all that familiar with. I wasn’t either, until my friend and TRR associate Seattle4Truth informed me about some digging he did on this George Soros henchman who seems to be everywhere in the media. He’s not really a flamboyant presence, though. A quote here and there, an op-ed on CNN or The Atlantic, Zuckerman is content with injecting his globalist ideas into the body politic without actually becoming well-known.

I guess that makes it easier for him to operate as the bridge between progressive academia, the media, and their elected leaders.

His latest gambit is pretty much exactly what Seattle and I talked about earlier this year when we had an in-depth discussion about his BLACKPILL documentary. Zuckerman, one of Soros’ top thugs, literally wants to startup government-run social media so that the conservative blogosphere and their associated entities will lose political power. Continue reading