How Google & Facebook Censor Content & Demonetize Independent Media
- Thread starter angelburst29
- Start date
angelburst29
The Living Force
Put aside what you think of Alex Jones for a moment. If they can do this to him and not fear the repercussions, they can do it to anybody.
August 7, 2018 - Stop Complaining and Just Delete Facebook
http://theduran.com/stop-complaining-and-just-delete-facebook/
I wrote just one post last week and it centered around the dangers posed to society by U.S. tech giants. I specifically called out Facebook, pointing out how company executives are currently groveling to politicians in order to prevent legislation that might deem it a monopoly and curtail its power.
I explained how U.S. politicians prefer to use the power and reach of tech giants for their own ends rather than take them down a notch. Politicians aren’t at all concerned about the outsized influence of centralized tech behemoths engineering society using secret algorithms, they just want to be in control of how this power is abused.
Meanwhile, today’s biggest news is the uniform move by three U.S. tech giants to de-platform Alex Jones and his Infowars website. The main companies involved are Apple, Facebook and Google (via YouTube), as reported in The Guardian:
All but one of the major content platforms have banned the American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as the companies raced to act in the wake of Apple’s decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website.
Facebook unpublished four pages run by Jones for “repeated violations of community standards”, the company said on Monday. YouTube terminated Jones’s account over him repeatedly appearing in videos despite being subject to a 90-day ban from the website, and Spotify removed the entirety of one of Jones’s podcasts for “hate content”…
Facebook’s and YouTube’s enforcement action against Jones came hours after Apple removed Jones from its podcast directory. The timing of Facebook’s announcement was unusual, with the company confirming the ban at 3am local time.
Put aside what you think of Alex Jones for a moment. If they can do this to him and not fear the repercussions, they can do it to anybody. This is about power, and these platforms together account for a massive share of content distribution in the U.S. Ultimately, this is just a particularly muscular and in your face example of what’s known as Silicon Valley’s cultural imperialism.Facebook unpublished four pages run by Jones for “repeated violations of community standards”, the company said on Monday. YouTube terminated Jones’s account over him repeatedly appearing in videos despite being subject to a 90-day ban from the website, and Spotify removed the entirety of one of Jones’s podcasts for “hate content”…
Facebook’s and YouTube’s enforcement action against Jones came hours after Apple removed Jones from its podcast directory. The timing of Facebook’s announcement was unusual, with the company confirming the ban at 3am local time.
I know a lot of people think the answer is to get Congress to do something, as if those monumentally corrupt donor puppets have any interest in helping the public.
Michael Krieger @LibertyBlitz
I get it, you want Congress to call Facebook a monopoly and break it up.
Unfortunately, here are two hard truths:
1) Politicians would rather use Facebook as a weapon than reduce its power.
2) Politicians don't work for you.
2:00 PM - Aug 6, 2018
Jesse Walker @notjessewalker
I've been saying this for a while. The momentum isn't with the critics who would actually diminish the big tech companies' power. The momentum is with people who see the corps' concentrated influence as a tool to be used.
Michael Tracey
✔ @mtracey
Have you noticed that every time there's a 'backlash' against tech companies -- usually generated by Congress and prestige media -- it only ever results in the companies arrogating *more powers* to themselves? Such as the power to determine what political content is permissible?
11:29 AM - Aug 6, 2018
Michael Krieger @LibertyBlitz
Stop bitching and take action.
Here's how to delete Facebook, not deactivate, but DELETE (they make it hard).https://www.vpnmentor.com/blog/how-to-delete-your-facebook-account-really-update/ …
1:29 PM - Aug 6, 2018
How to permanently DELETE Your Facebook Account – 2018 Update | vpnMentor
It's easy to deactivate your Facebook account. It's much harder to actually delete it. We figured out how to, and we're sharing our secrets.
vpnmentor.com
I’d also like to point out that Facebook’s stock was up over 4% today, completely shrugging off any potential backlash from users. Executives assume its users are all addled junkies unwilling to give up convenience and their addiction no matter what the company does. Are they right?
Speaking of which, on the same day the move against Jones was announced we learn Facebook is in talks with mega banks to get your financial information.
[URL='https://t.co/KfgGrfVOKQ'][URL='https://t.co/KfgGrfVOKQ']From The Wall Street Journal:[/URL][/URL]
[URL='https://t.co/KfgGrfVOKQ']
Facebook Inc.wants your financial data.
The social media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including card transactions and checking account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.
Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends. The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp to discuss potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.
The social media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including card transactions and checking account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.
Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends. The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp to discuss potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.
Don’t wait for other people to change things for you, stop whining and take some individual responsibility. If you agree that Facebook’s primarily a nefarious narcissism-factory wasteland masquerading as a platform just delete it… before it deletes you.
[/URL]
Paul Watson's spot-on comments on the purge of Alex Jones from all major internet platforms:
It seems to me they are getting completely desperate, revealing the "man behind the curtain" even more. I think they can't win this "war for the souls" with such actions... Or maybe there's something else going on?
It seems to me they are getting completely desperate, revealing the "man behind the curtain" even more. I think they can't win this "war for the souls" with such actions... Or maybe there's something else going on?
Nigel Farage weighed-in on the tech giant censorship collusion against Infowars and Alex Jones with an op-ed on Tuesday, where Farage argued…”while many on the libertarian right and within the conservative movement have their issues with Alex Jones and InfoWars, this week’s announcement by YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify represents a concerted effort of proscription and censorship that could just as soon see any of us confined to the dustbin of social media history.”
Farage went on to rightly accuse Silicon Valley tech giants of being corporatist…
According to Zerohedge, Farage concluded that the real interference in “US democracy” comes not from Russia, but from some of its most powerful corporations which now yield more power in some cases than the government itself: “This isn’t “liberal democracy” as they keep pretending. It’s autocracy.”
“…for those that don’t take issue with the latest censorship of right-wingers by big social media — unless we take a stand now, who knows where it could end.”
Farage’s words fell on deaf ears, for in a matter of hours Twitter moved to suspend the accounts of the editorial director of antiwar.com Scott Horton, former State Department employee Peter Van Buren, and Dan McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute.
RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss the movement towards Orwellian censorship and control that appears to be picking up speed across social media platforms that, during the early days of social, sold users on a false “promise” to offer open and free communication.
These platforms that claim to be “open” and in favor of “free speech” are now routinely targeting — whether by human intervention or not — the views and expressions of conservatives and anti-globalists.
This is why they no longer even fit the bill of “platforms.” They are publishers in the same way we regard news outlets as publishers. They may use more machine learning and automation, but their systems clearly take editorial positions. We need to hold them to account in the same way we do any other publisher.
This is why they no longer even fit the bill of “platforms.” They are publishers in the same way we regard news outlets as publishers. They may use more machine learning and automation, but their systems clearly take editorial positions. We need to hold them to account in the same way we do any other publisher.
Farage went on to rightly accuse Silicon Valley tech giants of being corporatist…
That they cannot profess to be neutral, open platforms while being illiberal, dictatorial, and hiding behind the visage of a private corporation (which are more often than not in bed with governments around the world at the very highest levels).
This isn’t capitalism. It’s corporatism.
This isn’t capitalism. It’s corporatism.
According to Zerohedge, Farage concluded that the real interference in “US democracy” comes not from Russia, but from some of its most powerful corporations which now yield more power in some cases than the government itself: “This isn’t “liberal democracy” as they keep pretending. It’s autocracy.”
“…for those that don’t take issue with the latest censorship of right-wingers by big social media — unless we take a stand now, who knows where it could end.”
Farage’s words fell on deaf ears, for in a matter of hours Twitter moved to suspend the accounts of the editorial director of antiwar.com Scott Horton, former State Department employee Peter Van Buren, and Dan McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute.
RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss the movement towards Orwellian censorship and control that appears to be picking up speed across social media platforms that, during the early days of social, sold users on a false “promise” to offer open and free communication.
I think the main purpose (or consequence) of this purge is to scare people so that they stop or don't start sharing truth on social media. I mean, there are so many folks depending on social media for their income (directly or indirectly) and these are the most active peeps on those platforms. Now they will think twice about posting anything slightly controversial. It's actually a big deal because you can spread some truth no matter what your main topic - whether you are a tech blogger, travel YouTuber, business twitterer etc. There's always an unpopular but truthful angle you can take... But if your income (partly) depends on those platforms - what risk will you be willing to take?
Another thought I had is that we cannot be grateful enough that the president Hillary timeline has been thwarted. Now it's "only" the corporate deep state causing trouble, but imagine the president, administration/congress being 100% in line with the liberal madness! They would probably have unleashed some Orwellian nightmare like a "internet freedom act" or "anti online-bullying act" forcing the tech companies to censor and ban everything remotely smelling of truth. They might still do something like this, but really, thanks God for Trump! Not that he is the greatest leader or anything, but it would be so much worse had he lost
Another thought I had is that we cannot be grateful enough that the president Hillary timeline has been thwarted. Now it's "only" the corporate deep state causing trouble, but imagine the president, administration/congress being 100% in line with the liberal madness! They would probably have unleashed some Orwellian nightmare like a "internet freedom act" or "anti online-bullying act" forcing the tech companies to censor and ban everything remotely smelling of truth. They might still do something like this, but really, thanks God for Trump! Not that he is the greatest leader or anything, but it would be so much worse had he lost
Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront; Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.
The Big Profits Driving Online Censorship
This summer we have witnessed the increasing demand by mainstream media, Democratic Party legislators, and even former disgraced intelligence agency heads, for the silencing of dissenting viewpoints. Although the most recent wholesale ban on Alex Jones and Infowars on just about every social media platform out there is the most glaring and chilling example of outright censorship, the efforts of the Deep State to silence any voices of dissent or for presenting a narrative counter to that being peddled by the almost complete monopoly of social and mainstream media that serves them has been building in intensity for quite some time. The claims that the big tech companies that control all social media platforms through virtual monopoly are not required to meet the constitutional protections of the 1st amendment, because they are not governmental agencies, but private businesses, is patently false.
Immediately following the blanket ban on Alex Jones related accounts on social media platforms, a multitude of mass media writers and pundits appeared to argue why such a move was both vital and wholly legal. Perhaps a more reasonable opinion in this regard was presented in the Washington Examiner. In an opinion piece by Erin Dunne, published on August 6th, the author makes too basic assertions. Firstly, she argues correctly, that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment’s protection of speech. Secondly, she argues that private companies’ powers to regulate what speech is acceptable are not governed by the First Amendment. She succinctly states:
Under most circumstances I would agree with Ms. Dunne’s second point, but the current case in question is quite different than any past case study in a private entity’s constitutional requirements where freedom of speech are concerned. Firstly, just a handful of big tech companies control virtually all social media platforms, effectively operating an illegal, anti-free market monopoly. This is not a normal, or even legal form of private business in the United States. Secondly, these companies are banning individuals and groups in coordination with one another and at the behest of special interests groups, including current federal government legislators, the mass media, and former federal intelligence agency officials. This “usual suspects” line-up, representing what is now acknowledged as the Deep State, even by the mainstream media outlets that serve as its propaganda operation, are basically contracting a private company to do what they are legally prevented from doing so themselves. So, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are working as independent contractors to conduct the type of censorship of the internet that the federal government would like to conduct through agencies such as the FCC or even the CIA and the NSA, but is legally prohibited from doing so.
Are these monolithic tech companies acting as “the beard” for the federal government? By working through Facebook and Google, the federal government has plausible deniability, and has removed itself from legal responsibility. This is only true, if one cannot connect the dots and establish a very clear ideological and economic relationship between these tech giants and the intelligence agencies of the federal government. As convenient a tool for communication and collaboration that social media platforms have become, we all have to recognize that they are an intrinsic component of the Deep State apparatus.
Google, the largest online search engine by far, which also owns YouTube, won its first federal government contract to provide Google apps and cloud services to the GSA in 2010. This contract, worth $6.7 million at the time, was just the first of many. They are currently in the running to provide cloud services (coined JEDI) to the Department of Defense worth an estimated $10 billion. Other service providers competing for the business, some of which already provide similar services for federal government agencies, include Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, CSRA, and IBM. Google had a contract to aid the Department of Defense in developing AI technology (Project Maven), but announced its intent not to continue the work after tens of thousands of engineers employed by the company signed a petition sighting the unethical nature of the work. This principled stance by rank and file employees (not company executives) is encouraging.
It is well known that Amazon Web Services has a contract with the CIA worth a reported $600 million. Amazon created its “Secret Region” cloud service for the CIA in 2014, and has been providing these services ever since. Amazon is considered the front runner in winning the $10 billion contract to provide clouds services to the DOD. As Aaron Gregg reported for the Washington Post on August 7th,
“The $10 billion opportunity promises to be many times larger than Amazon’s earlier work with the CIA, something that has attracted interest from a diverse pool of software companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Google, IBM and General Dynamics. (Amazon founder Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Post.)”
Did you catch the disclosure at the end? Yes, the owner of Amazon has his own propaganda service, the Washington Post. The Washington Post routinely runs articles praising the intelligence agencies regardless of their record of criminal behavior, has attacked Alex Jones and anyone that questions the “official narrative”, and has pushed the idea that there are limits that the federal government can impose on U.S. citizens constitutional rights. Oh yeah, and as a media provider with millions of customers, Alex Jones’ Infowars is a direct competitor of the Washington Post. See the conflict of interest here?
So how does Facebook fit in? Anyone that has followed the Facebook information sharing scandal of the past year knows that yes, Facebook does whatever the hell it wants with your personal information. They always have. And do you know who the first customer probably was? The NSA. Don’t kid yourself, you can be sure that Facebook and the intelligence agencies have a clandestine agreement in this regard. Both Facebook and the heads of the NSA have lied in testimony before Congress in the past. Should this surprise anyone?
Google has been helping the Chinese government censor internet searches originating in that country since 2006. China boasts over 772 million internet users, so the financial gain for Google is worth helping a totalitarian government stifle free speech and access to information. Apple removed all censorship circumventing apps from the company’s Chinese App Store. Amazon Web Services, through its Chinese partner Beijing Sinnet Technology, notified all of its clients to stop using any tools designed to circumvent the government’s online censorship tools. Although Facebook has still not been given the green light to open a subsidiary in China, over the issue of government imposed censorship regulations, the money will soon prove too hard an inducement to pass up, and Facebook will follow the lead of Apple, Amazon and even LinkedIn. That’s right, the same LinkedIn that banned Alex Jones from having a professional profile on its sight, has no qualms about censoring information available to its users in China at the behest of that nations communist government.
So we have a group of mass media outlets owned by large corporations, some of which are large defense corporation and some of which are social media monoliths. Both make millions of dollars off huge federal government contracts. Many former Department of Defense officials, generals, and heads of agencies such as the CIA, NSA and FBI are all paid contributors, analysts and consultants for these same media outlets. Many of these same individuals work for a well-known Deep State think-tank called the Atlantic Council. Why is this important you might ask? Well, they just happen to operate the Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Research Lab. As Joseph Menn wrote in an article for Reuters entitled “U.S. think tank’s tiny lab helps Facebook battle fake social media” on August 7th:
“Facebook is using the group to enhance its investigations of foreign interference. Last week, the company said it took down 32 suspicious pages and accounts that purported to be run by leftists and minority activists. While some U.S. officials said they were likely the work of Russian agents, Facebook said it did not know for sure.
Using its own software and other tools, the team sorts through social media postings for patterns.
Facebook donated an undisclosed amount to the lab in May that was enough, said Graham Brookie, who runs the lab, to vault the company to the top of the Atlantic Council’s donor list, alongside the British government.
The Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Lab is made up of a research team with ties to the U.S. federal government. The Director and Managing Editor is Graham Brookie. His bio on the site states:
“He previously served in various positions at the White House and National Security Council. His most recent role was as an adviser for strategic communications with a focus on digital strategy, audience engagement, and coordinating a cohesive record of former U.S. President Obama’s national security and foreign policy.”
So his most recent former job was to find out how to best lie about the utter failure of Obama’s national security and foreign policy and pass it off as a success story? Yeah, that’s who I want telling me what information to believe on the internet… And don’t forget Senior Fellow Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, and his partner in crime Lead Digital Forensic Researcher Aric Toler, also of Bellingcat. Then there are Senior Fellow Ben Nimmo who was a former NATO press officer, and Digital Forensic Research Associate Donara Barojan who is based at the NATO StratCom Center of Excellence in Riga, Latvia. Finally there is Senior Fellow Naz Durakoglu. Her bio on the site states:
Naz Durakoglu came to DFRLab after her role in the Obama Administration as senior advisor to the assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs at the US Department of State. She has served on Capitol Hill and on several gubernatorial, congressional, and presidential campaigns and continues to advise Members of Congress, their staff, and companies on various foreign policy and national security matters.”
So this is the unbiased, independent organization filtering “real” and “fake” news for Facebook? I’m sorry, but their obvious and long running connections to the administration of former U.S. President Obama and NATO, not to the mention the proven anti-Russian trolls of Bellingcat, call into question any impartiality possible here. Are you starting to recognize the pattern in all of this? Here is a short list, and far from a complete list, of current Atlantic Council Directors and Honorary Directors:
Directors:
Honorary Directors:
Although I am not a lawyer, I would have to say that Alex Jones has a good case against all of the entities working to silence him for engaging in a racketeering enterprise. Clearly, the mass media, at the behest of the Deep State (most importantly the intelligence agencies) is creating a false narrative of a problem that needs to be solved, the “conspiracy theories, racism and hate speech” being propagated by Alex Jones. The social media providers are then pressured by government and the mass media to do something about this problem. Behind the scenes the federal government is paying these same tech companies tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to provide various services, while asking them to act as a proxy censor of online content, because it is illegal for the U.S. government to do so directly. The tech companies act on behalf of the government, becoming a coconspirator and racketeer along with the mass media. The mass media stands to benefit by destroying their competition, which has been devastating their control of information and their profitability. In some cases the tech companies own these same mass media outlets.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the opinions of Alex Jones or the information being provided on his many platforms, Infowars chief amongst them, he has the constitutional right to speak his mind and to operate a media platform that presents a different view of events. I do not agree with many of the opinions and views of Mr. Jones personally, but I would never support any efforts to silence him because his views run counter to mine. I can definitely say that nothing that I have ever read or viewed on Infowars can be described as racist or hateful. Many commentary found on mainstream media or social media can be clearly defined as racist or hateful, but as long as it fits in with the mainstream political and social narrative being pushed by mass media, academia, Hollywood and the Progressive Left, it is seen as acceptable speech. Take for example the recent revelations of racist tweets and comments made by the newest member of the editorial board at the New York Times, Sarah Jeong. The Times supports her and has no intention of firing her. She has been given a free pass, like so many others amongst the progressive left media and academia who have shown a long running pattern of anti-white racism, incitement to violence, and hateful commentary. Such is the double standard that we are faced with today.
The censorship and demonization of Alex Jones, love him or hate him, is just the beta test of wholesale government censorship by proxy. Infowars is the test case. If the American people allow this obvious violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to go unchallenged, Alex Jones will just be the first in a long line of voices silenced, because they put forward ideas and a narrative not embraced by the powers that be. After Jones, who will be next? The sky will be the limit. Acting as judge, jury and executioner, the “Mass Media – Social Media Giants – Military/Security Services” racket will silence anyone that threatens their narrative and their profits. They have a symbiotic relationship you see, and they feed off of the vast riches created for them by the military industrial complex that enslaves the rest of us. While the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos get rich depriving you of free speech and access to the truth, and the mass media pundits and former generals and CIA officers get rich peddling lies on the networks at the behest of a U.S. military industrial complex that has claimed the lives of millions globally, they would all have you think that Alex Jones is the monster. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so horrifying.
The Big Profits Driving Online Censorship
This summer we have witnessed the increasing demand by mainstream media, Democratic Party legislators, and even former disgraced intelligence agency heads, for the silencing of dissenting viewpoints. Although the most recent wholesale ban on Alex Jones and Infowars on just about every social media platform out there is the most glaring and chilling example of outright censorship, the efforts of the Deep State to silence any voices of dissent or for presenting a narrative counter to that being peddled by the almost complete monopoly of social and mainstream media that serves them has been building in intensity for quite some time. The claims that the big tech companies that control all social media platforms through virtual monopoly are not required to meet the constitutional protections of the 1st amendment, because they are not governmental agencies, but private businesses, is patently false.
Immediately following the blanket ban on Alex Jones related accounts on social media platforms, a multitude of mass media writers and pundits appeared to argue why such a move was both vital and wholly legal. Perhaps a more reasonable opinion in this regard was presented in the Washington Examiner. In an opinion piece by Erin Dunne, published on August 6th, the author makes too basic assertions. Firstly, she argues correctly, that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment’s protection of speech. Secondly, she argues that private companies’ powers to regulate what speech is acceptable are not governed by the First Amendment. She succinctly states:
“Private companies, unlike government, are not beholden to court’s decisions on free speech. Facebook, Apple, and YouTube can all decide for themselves how to define hate speech and enforce that definition.
That makes sense. As private companies catering to users they have an obligation to shareholders to make a profit so they will pick a definition of hate speech that their users want and then enforce that.”
“For those who don’t like the chosen definition, there is also a simple solution: Don’t use those sites. This is how the market works. If you don’t like the terms of service then then there are other options (or soon will be). Companies want your business.
Unlike subscribing to the laws of the United States, the user agreements of social media companies are optional.”
Under most circumstances I would agree with Ms. Dunne’s second point, but the current case in question is quite different than any past case study in a private entity’s constitutional requirements where freedom of speech are concerned. Firstly, just a handful of big tech companies control virtually all social media platforms, effectively operating an illegal, anti-free market monopoly. This is not a normal, or even legal form of private business in the United States. Secondly, these companies are banning individuals and groups in coordination with one another and at the behest of special interests groups, including current federal government legislators, the mass media, and former federal intelligence agency officials. This “usual suspects” line-up, representing what is now acknowledged as the Deep State, even by the mainstream media outlets that serve as its propaganda operation, are basically contracting a private company to do what they are legally prevented from doing so themselves. So, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are working as independent contractors to conduct the type of censorship of the internet that the federal government would like to conduct through agencies such as the FCC or even the CIA and the NSA, but is legally prohibited from doing so.
Are these monolithic tech companies acting as “the beard” for the federal government? By working through Facebook and Google, the federal government has plausible deniability, and has removed itself from legal responsibility. This is only true, if one cannot connect the dots and establish a very clear ideological and economic relationship between these tech giants and the intelligence agencies of the federal government. As convenient a tool for communication and collaboration that social media platforms have become, we all have to recognize that they are an intrinsic component of the Deep State apparatus.
Google, the largest online search engine by far, which also owns YouTube, won its first federal government contract to provide Google apps and cloud services to the GSA in 2010. This contract, worth $6.7 million at the time, was just the first of many. They are currently in the running to provide cloud services (coined JEDI) to the Department of Defense worth an estimated $10 billion. Other service providers competing for the business, some of which already provide similar services for federal government agencies, include Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, CSRA, and IBM. Google had a contract to aid the Department of Defense in developing AI technology (Project Maven), but announced its intent not to continue the work after tens of thousands of engineers employed by the company signed a petition sighting the unethical nature of the work. This principled stance by rank and file employees (not company executives) is encouraging.
It is well known that Amazon Web Services has a contract with the CIA worth a reported $600 million. Amazon created its “Secret Region” cloud service for the CIA in 2014, and has been providing these services ever since. Amazon is considered the front runner in winning the $10 billion contract to provide clouds services to the DOD. As Aaron Gregg reported for the Washington Post on August 7th,
“The $10 billion opportunity promises to be many times larger than Amazon’s earlier work with the CIA, something that has attracted interest from a diverse pool of software companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Google, IBM and General Dynamics. (Amazon founder Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Post.)”
Did you catch the disclosure at the end? Yes, the owner of Amazon has his own propaganda service, the Washington Post. The Washington Post routinely runs articles praising the intelligence agencies regardless of their record of criminal behavior, has attacked Alex Jones and anyone that questions the “official narrative”, and has pushed the idea that there are limits that the federal government can impose on U.S. citizens constitutional rights. Oh yeah, and as a media provider with millions of customers, Alex Jones’ Infowars is a direct competitor of the Washington Post. See the conflict of interest here?
So how does Facebook fit in? Anyone that has followed the Facebook information sharing scandal of the past year knows that yes, Facebook does whatever the hell it wants with your personal information. They always have. And do you know who the first customer probably was? The NSA. Don’t kid yourself, you can be sure that Facebook and the intelligence agencies have a clandestine agreement in this regard. Both Facebook and the heads of the NSA have lied in testimony before Congress in the past. Should this surprise anyone?
Google has been helping the Chinese government censor internet searches originating in that country since 2006. China boasts over 772 million internet users, so the financial gain for Google is worth helping a totalitarian government stifle free speech and access to information. Apple removed all censorship circumventing apps from the company’s Chinese App Store. Amazon Web Services, through its Chinese partner Beijing Sinnet Technology, notified all of its clients to stop using any tools designed to circumvent the government’s online censorship tools. Although Facebook has still not been given the green light to open a subsidiary in China, over the issue of government imposed censorship regulations, the money will soon prove too hard an inducement to pass up, and Facebook will follow the lead of Apple, Amazon and even LinkedIn. That’s right, the same LinkedIn that banned Alex Jones from having a professional profile on its sight, has no qualms about censoring information available to its users in China at the behest of that nations communist government.
So we have a group of mass media outlets owned by large corporations, some of which are large defense corporation and some of which are social media monoliths. Both make millions of dollars off huge federal government contracts. Many former Department of Defense officials, generals, and heads of agencies such as the CIA, NSA and FBI are all paid contributors, analysts and consultants for these same media outlets. Many of these same individuals work for a well-known Deep State think-tank called the Atlantic Council. Why is this important you might ask? Well, they just happen to operate the Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Research Lab. As Joseph Menn wrote in an article for Reuters entitled “U.S. think tank’s tiny lab helps Facebook battle fake social media” on August 7th:
“Facebook is using the group to enhance its investigations of foreign interference. Last week, the company said it took down 32 suspicious pages and accounts that purported to be run by leftists and minority activists. While some U.S. officials said they were likely the work of Russian agents, Facebook said it did not know for sure.
Using its own software and other tools, the team sorts through social media postings for patterns.
Facebook donated an undisclosed amount to the lab in May that was enough, said Graham Brookie, who runs the lab, to vault the company to the top of the Atlantic Council’s donor list, alongside the British government.
The Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Lab is made up of a research team with ties to the U.S. federal government. The Director and Managing Editor is Graham Brookie. His bio on the site states:
“He previously served in various positions at the White House and National Security Council. His most recent role was as an adviser for strategic communications with a focus on digital strategy, audience engagement, and coordinating a cohesive record of former U.S. President Obama’s national security and foreign policy.”
So his most recent former job was to find out how to best lie about the utter failure of Obama’s national security and foreign policy and pass it off as a success story? Yeah, that’s who I want telling me what information to believe on the internet… And don’t forget Senior Fellow Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, and his partner in crime Lead Digital Forensic Researcher Aric Toler, also of Bellingcat. Then there are Senior Fellow Ben Nimmo who was a former NATO press officer, and Digital Forensic Research Associate Donara Barojan who is based at the NATO StratCom Center of Excellence in Riga, Latvia. Finally there is Senior Fellow Naz Durakoglu. Her bio on the site states:
Naz Durakoglu came to DFRLab after her role in the Obama Administration as senior advisor to the assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs at the US Department of State. She has served on Capitol Hill and on several gubernatorial, congressional, and presidential campaigns and continues to advise Members of Congress, their staff, and companies on various foreign policy and national security matters.”
So this is the unbiased, independent organization filtering “real” and “fake” news for Facebook? I’m sorry, but their obvious and long running connections to the administration of former U.S. President Obama and NATO, not to the mention the proven anti-Russian trolls of Bellingcat, call into question any impartiality possible here. Are you starting to recognize the pattern in all of this? Here is a short list, and far from a complete list, of current Atlantic Council Directors and Honorary Directors:
Directors:
Henry Kissinger – former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor
Phillip M. Breedlove – former Commander, U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (NATO Supreme Commander)
James Cartwright – former USMC General and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Michael Chertoff – former Secretary of Homeland Security, co-author of the USA Patriot Act
Wesley Clark – former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (NATO Supreme Commander)
Michael Hayden – former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Michael Morell – former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
David Petraeus – former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Honorary Directors:
James Baker III – former White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasury
Ashton Carter – former U.S. Secretary of Defense
Frank Carlucci – former U.S. Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates – former U.S. Secretary of Defense and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Michael Mullen – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Leon Panetta – former White House Chief of Staff and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
William Perry – former Secretary of Defense
Colin Powell – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice – former National Security Advisor and U.S. Secretary of State
Although I am not a lawyer, I would have to say that Alex Jones has a good case against all of the entities working to silence him for engaging in a racketeering enterprise. Clearly, the mass media, at the behest of the Deep State (most importantly the intelligence agencies) is creating a false narrative of a problem that needs to be solved, the “conspiracy theories, racism and hate speech” being propagated by Alex Jones. The social media providers are then pressured by government and the mass media to do something about this problem. Behind the scenes the federal government is paying these same tech companies tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to provide various services, while asking them to act as a proxy censor of online content, because it is illegal for the U.S. government to do so directly. The tech companies act on behalf of the government, becoming a coconspirator and racketeer along with the mass media. The mass media stands to benefit by destroying their competition, which has been devastating their control of information and their profitability. In some cases the tech companies own these same mass media outlets.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the opinions of Alex Jones or the information being provided on his many platforms, Infowars chief amongst them, he has the constitutional right to speak his mind and to operate a media platform that presents a different view of events. I do not agree with many of the opinions and views of Mr. Jones personally, but I would never support any efforts to silence him because his views run counter to mine. I can definitely say that nothing that I have ever read or viewed on Infowars can be described as racist or hateful. Many commentary found on mainstream media or social media can be clearly defined as racist or hateful, but as long as it fits in with the mainstream political and social narrative being pushed by mass media, academia, Hollywood and the Progressive Left, it is seen as acceptable speech. Take for example the recent revelations of racist tweets and comments made by the newest member of the editorial board at the New York Times, Sarah Jeong. The Times supports her and has no intention of firing her. She has been given a free pass, like so many others amongst the progressive left media and academia who have shown a long running pattern of anti-white racism, incitement to violence, and hateful commentary. Such is the double standard that we are faced with today.
The censorship and demonization of Alex Jones, love him or hate him, is just the beta test of wholesale government censorship by proxy. Infowars is the test case. If the American people allow this obvious violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to go unchallenged, Alex Jones will just be the first in a long line of voices silenced, because they put forward ideas and a narrative not embraced by the powers that be. After Jones, who will be next? The sky will be the limit. Acting as judge, jury and executioner, the “Mass Media – Social Media Giants – Military/Security Services” racket will silence anyone that threatens their narrative and their profits. They have a symbiotic relationship you see, and they feed off of the vast riches created for them by the military industrial complex that enslaves the rest of us. While the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos get rich depriving you of free speech and access to the truth, and the mass media pundits and former generals and CIA officers get rich peddling lies on the networks at the behest of a U.S. military industrial complex that has claimed the lives of millions globally, they would all have you think that Alex Jones is the monster. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so horrifying.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)
Last edited:
Over the past couple of weeks I've been seeing posts from a platform called Kialo, mostly on Brexit, for example:
There are other interesting topics too:
Some discussions are quite decent, some are not. Many are designed in a leading manner. Excuse my suspicion but given the recent censoring of conservative accounts and banning Alex Jones I'm not very trusting of a debate tool those platforms push. Apart from social media, the creator, Errikos Pitsos, has demonstrated his tool at Harvard too.
They market themselves as as a rational debate tool where emotional responses are prevented from having an impact on the quality of the debate. Here's how it works:
http://niemanreports.org/articles/four-news-startups-trying-to-improve-civic-discourse/
And:
I wonder how they define 'emotional'? Or a 'troll'? To me it does open the door to editing out responses they don't want published.
I haven't used Kialo myself but I found a couple of user experience with the platform, for example: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-kialo-me-gregory-kohs/
Pistos says he doesn't intend to make money through advertising but through selling the tool to companies:
But their privacy statement says they do share their data with third parties:
Since it says above the list of third parties 'includes' the following, the list probably isn't exhaustive.
Kialo's posts on Brexit seemed to be designed in a 'stay' leaning manner. I don't want to sound like I see George Soros under every rock (for this would not be an entertaining view) but since he is pushing for another Brexit referendum I thought I'd check whether I can find any links between Kialo, Errikos Pitsos and George Soros. Weirdly enough, a google search returned two results, a pro-Soros YouTube video and a random attorney site
All I could find on DuckDuckGo was this tweet response by a user who didn't provide any sources. I wonder where he got that info from?
Colt ✞ on Twitter
Soros isn't the only one looking to derail Brexit so there may in fact be no link.
There are other interesting topics too:
Some discussions are quite decent, some are not. Many are designed in a leading manner. Excuse my suspicion but given the recent censoring of conservative accounts and banning Alex Jones I'm not very trusting of a debate tool those platforms push. Apart from social media, the creator, Errikos Pitsos, has demonstrated his tool at Harvard too.
They market themselves as as a rational debate tool where emotional responses are prevented from having an impact on the quality of the debate. Here's how it works:
http://niemanreports.org/articles/four-news-startups-trying-to-improve-civic-discourse/
And:
I wonder how they define 'emotional'? Or a 'troll'? To me it does open the door to editing out responses they don't want published.
I haven't used Kialo myself but I found a couple of user experience with the platform, for example: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-kialo-me-gregory-kohs/
Pistos says he doesn't intend to make money through advertising but through selling the tool to companies:
But their privacy statement says they do share their data with third parties:
Since it says above the list of third parties 'includes' the following, the list probably isn't exhaustive.
Kialo's posts on Brexit seemed to be designed in a 'stay' leaning manner. I don't want to sound like I see George Soros under every rock (for this would not be an entertaining view) but since he is pushing for another Brexit referendum I thought I'd check whether I can find any links between Kialo, Errikos Pitsos and George Soros. Weirdly enough, a google search returned two results, a pro-Soros YouTube video and a random attorney site
All I could find on DuckDuckGo was this tweet response by a user who didn't provide any sources. I wonder where he got that info from?
Colt ✞ on Twitter
Soros isn't the only one looking to derail Brexit so there may in fact be no link.
Last edited:
Exclusive--Twitter Target Gavin McInnes on Solution: ‘Trump Has to Step Up’
Conservative commentator Gavin Mcinnes appeared on Breitbart News Saturday this week to discuss his recent Twitter suspension and why it’s up to President Trump to stop social media censorship.
Appearing alongside Breitbart News Editor Amanda House, conservative commentator and CRTV host Gavin McInnes discusses his recent suspension from Twitter and the banning of his pro-Western mens group, The Proud Boys. During the interview, McInnes warned that the banning of Alex Jones was just the beginning of mass consevative censorship and soon websites like Breitbart and Fox News would also have to worry about being censored online.
“I interviewed Alex Jones this week, I dedicated an episode on my show to him and he said “you’re next!” and he was talking about me, but all conservatives, and 24 hours later, I was next. I think the future is socialism, the future is Tucker Carlson getting on a plane and being tapped on the shoulder and being told he has to get off the plane, and that’s already happened with ICE agents, by the way, they’re told they can’t use certain airlines. We’re going to be kicked out of hotels, it’s already happening with restaurants, so utilities follows after that and that includes web hosters y’know they’re trying to get rid of [social media network] Gab and yes, of course, Breitbart is next on the chopping block, of course Daily Caller, Daily Wire, they will attack the hosts for those and try to make sure they can’t have that site and they’ll make up a ‘unite the right’ story to justify it.”
Breitbart News Editor Amanda House asked McInnes: “What needs to happen? Is it Congress stepping in, is it people just getting off these platforms altogether?”
McInnes replied: “Trump has to stand up and say ‘this is not the free market, this is collusion with the DNC and big business and big tech and that’s illegal, that’s unamerican, that’s not acceptable.’ The whole reason that InfoWars was shut down was because the DNC saw him as a threat, the whole reason me and the Proud Boys were shut down is because the DNC hated our millennial appeal. We can’t have the DNC deciding how big companies behave, that’s called fascism.”
Some people posted an article which linked to the following site, it is a blog where people complain about the censoring of FB and it seems to be a general strategy:
Facebook Zoo - Facebook Zoo
Beside also JP Sears complained a bit:
Facebook Zoo - Facebook Zoo
Beside also JP Sears complained a bit:
angelburst29
The Living Force
August 24, 2018 - Leaked 49-page memo documents how George Soros is behind social media censorship
http://theduran.com/leaked-49-page-...orge-soros-is-behind-social-media-censorship/
Media Matters founder David Brock is pushing for the destruction of Donald Trump at Soros’ behest.
A new leaked memo obtained by The Free Beacon documents how George Soros funded groups plotted with Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to eliminate conservative “right wing propaganda.”
The recent wave of censorship of conservative voices on the internet by tech giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Apple mirrors a plan concocted by a coalition of George Soros-funded, progressive groups to take back power in Washington from President Trump’s administration.
A confidential, 49-page memo for defeating Trump by working with the major social-media platforms to eliminate “right wing propaganda and fake news” was presented in January 2017 by Media Matters founder David Brock at a retreat in Florida with about 100 donors, the Washington Free Beacon reported at the time.
The Gateway Pundit reported that in January 2017 after Hillary Clinton was shellacked in the November 2016 election top Democrat operatives at Media Matters, Share Blue, American Bridge, and CREW came together and released their two-year plan to take back power in Washington DC.
The document obtained by The Free Beacon states that Media Matters and other Soros funded groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”
According to the document, the radical left groups have been working with Facebook and Twitter to eliminate conservative content.
The Free Beacon obtained a copy of the memo, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” by attending a January 2017 retreat in Florida sponsored by Media Matters founder David Brock and 100 donors.
WND reports that the memo spells out a four-year agenda that deployed Media Matters along with American Bridge, Shareblue and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to attack Trump and Republicans. The strategies are impeachment, expanding Media Matters’ mission to combat “government misinformation,” ensuring Democratic control of the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections, filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, monetizing political advocacy, using a “digital attacker” to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and damage Republicans, and partnering with Facebook to combat “fake news.”
WND reports…
‘Totalitarian impulse’ of the left
President Trump’s 2020 campaign manager charged last week the giants of Silicon Valley are stifling free speech, particularly conservative speech, manifesting the “inherent totalitarian impulse” of the left.
On Friday, Facebook appeared to be “shadow banning” the non-profit education site PragerU, founded by talk-host Dennis Prager, causing a drop in engagement of 99.9999 percent while removing two videos regarded as “hate speech.”
After Facebook rejected a highly inspirational ad for a Republican congressional candidate that included images depicting her parents’ persecution under the Khmer Rouge communist regime in Cambodia, Twitter followed up with its own ban.
WND reported earlier this month Facebook banned a pro-life video ad by a judicial candidate, giving the same explanation.
On Aug. 6, WND reported, Facebook, YouTube and Apple banned commentator Alex Jones and his Infowars website within hours of each other.
Last month, WND reported moderate Muslims and counter-terrorist activists were increasingly being restricted by Silicon Valley, while terrorist content remains on social-media platforms, according to researchers.
Trump campaign chief Parscale said last week the banning of Jones “will inevitably lead to the silencing of those with far less controversial opinions.”
“What we are seeing in Big Tech is the inherent totalitarian impulse of the Left come into full focus,” Parscale said.
http://theduran.com/leaked-49-page-...orge-soros-is-behind-social-media-censorship/
Media Matters founder David Brock is pushing for the destruction of Donald Trump at Soros’ behest.
A new leaked memo obtained by The Free Beacon documents how George Soros funded groups plotted with Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to eliminate conservative “right wing propaganda.”
The recent wave of censorship of conservative voices on the internet by tech giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Apple mirrors a plan concocted by a coalition of George Soros-funded, progressive groups to take back power in Washington from President Trump’s administration.
A confidential, 49-page memo for defeating Trump by working with the major social-media platforms to eliminate “right wing propaganda and fake news” was presented in January 2017 by Media Matters founder David Brock at a retreat in Florida with about 100 donors, the Washington Free Beacon reported at the time.
The Gateway Pundit reported that in January 2017 after Hillary Clinton was shellacked in the November 2016 election top Democrat operatives at Media Matters, Share Blue, American Bridge, and CREW came together and released their two-year plan to take back power in Washington DC.
The document obtained by The Free Beacon states that Media Matters and other Soros funded groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”
According to the document, the radical left groups have been working with Facebook and Twitter to eliminate conservative content.
The Free Beacon obtained a copy of the memo, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” by attending a January 2017 retreat in Florida sponsored by Media Matters founder David Brock and 100 donors.
WND reports that the memo spells out a four-year agenda that deployed Media Matters along with American Bridge, Shareblue and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to attack Trump and Republicans. The strategies are impeachment, expanding Media Matters’ mission to combat “government misinformation,” ensuring Democratic control of the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections, filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, monetizing political advocacy, using a “digital attacker” to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and damage Republicans, and partnering with Facebook to combat “fake news.”
WND reports…
The document claims Media Matters and far-left groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”
“The earlier we can identify a fake news story, the more effectively we can quash it,” the memo states. “With this new technology at our fingertips, researchers monitoring news in real time will be able to identify the origins of a lie with mathematical precision, creating an early warning system for fake news and disinformation.”
Media Matters met with Facebook, which boasts some 2 billion members worldwide, to discuss how to crack down on fake news, according to the memo.
The social media giant was provided with “a detailed map of the constellation of right-wing Facebook pages that had been the biggest purveyors of fake news.”
Brock’s memo also says Media Matters gave Google “the information necessary to identify 40 of the worst fake new sites” so they could be banned from Google’s advertising network.
The Gateway Pundit pointed out that in 2016, Google carried out that plan on the Gateway Pundit blog and other conservative sites, including Breitbart, the Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse.
Facebook, meanwhile has changed its newsfeed algorithm, ostensibly to combat “fake news,” causing a precipitous decline in traffic for many conservative sites.
President Donald Trump himself was affected, with his engagement on Facebook dropping by 45 percent.
A study in June by Gateway Pundit found Facebook had eliminated 93 percent of the traffic of top conservative news outlets.
Western Journal, in its own study, found that while left-wing publishers saw a roughly 2 percent increase in web traffic from Facebook following the algorithm changes, conservative sites saw a loss of traffic averaging around 14 percent.
“The earlier we can identify a fake news story, the more effectively we can quash it,” the memo states. “With this new technology at our fingertips, researchers monitoring news in real time will be able to identify the origins of a lie with mathematical precision, creating an early warning system for fake news and disinformation.”
Media Matters met with Facebook, which boasts some 2 billion members worldwide, to discuss how to crack down on fake news, according to the memo.
The social media giant was provided with “a detailed map of the constellation of right-wing Facebook pages that had been the biggest purveyors of fake news.”
Brock’s memo also says Media Matters gave Google “the information necessary to identify 40 of the worst fake new sites” so they could be banned from Google’s advertising network.
The Gateway Pundit pointed out that in 2016, Google carried out that plan on the Gateway Pundit blog and other conservative sites, including Breitbart, the Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse.
Facebook, meanwhile has changed its newsfeed algorithm, ostensibly to combat “fake news,” causing a precipitous decline in traffic for many conservative sites.
President Donald Trump himself was affected, with his engagement on Facebook dropping by 45 percent.
A study in June by Gateway Pundit found Facebook had eliminated 93 percent of the traffic of top conservative news outlets.
Western Journal, in its own study, found that while left-wing publishers saw a roughly 2 percent increase in web traffic from Facebook following the algorithm changes, conservative sites saw a loss of traffic averaging around 14 percent.
‘Totalitarian impulse’ of the left
President Trump’s 2020 campaign manager charged last week the giants of Silicon Valley are stifling free speech, particularly conservative speech, manifesting the “inherent totalitarian impulse” of the left.
On Friday, Facebook appeared to be “shadow banning” the non-profit education site PragerU, founded by talk-host Dennis Prager, causing a drop in engagement of 99.9999 percent while removing two videos regarded as “hate speech.”
After Facebook rejected a highly inspirational ad for a Republican congressional candidate that included images depicting her parents’ persecution under the Khmer Rouge communist regime in Cambodia, Twitter followed up with its own ban.
WND reported earlier this month Facebook banned a pro-life video ad by a judicial candidate, giving the same explanation.
On Aug. 6, WND reported, Facebook, YouTube and Apple banned commentator Alex Jones and his Infowars website within hours of each other.
Last month, WND reported moderate Muslims and counter-terrorist activists were increasingly being restricted by Silicon Valley, while terrorist content remains on social-media platforms, according to researchers.
Trump campaign chief Parscale said last week the banning of Jones “will inevitably lead to the silencing of those with far less controversial opinions.”
“What we are seeing in Big Tech is the inherent totalitarian impulse of the Left come into full focus,” Parscale said.
I've been seeing those adverts lately, I'm glad to see the response: Street artist transforms Facebook bus adverts with forthright message
A protesting street artist has altered Facebook’s London billboard ads to include some home truths about the social media giant.
The ad campaign was launched in a bid to win back consumer trust in wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal where raw data from some 87 million Facebook profiles was harvested by the political consulting firm for the alleged purpose of influencing the US election.
The billboards included messages such as ‘Fake news is not our friend’ and ‘Data misuse is not our friend’.
The statements did not go far enough for artist Protest Stencil, however, who decided to enhance the posters with some harsh realities about the corporation’s actual motives, as he sees them.
Photos of the the parody adverts at London bus shelters have been shared online by Protest Stencil, who claimed that the make-over ads were created with “some leftover blue paint.”
RT has reached out to the social media giant for comment on the billboards.
A protesting street artist has altered Facebook’s London billboard ads to include some home truths about the social media giant.
The ad campaign was launched in a bid to win back consumer trust in wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal where raw data from some 87 million Facebook profiles was harvested by the political consulting firm for the alleged purpose of influencing the US election.
The billboards included messages such as ‘Fake news is not our friend’ and ‘Data misuse is not our friend’.
The statements did not go far enough for artist Protest Stencil, however, who decided to enhance the posters with some harsh realities about the corporation’s actual motives, as he sees them.
‘Fake news is not our friend, it’s a great revenue source’, one updated billboard read, while another stated ‘Data misuse is not our friend it’s our business model’.Photos of the the parody adverts at London bus shelters have been shared online by Protest Stencil, who claimed that the make-over ads were created with “some leftover blue paint.”
Facebook has been desperately trying to repair its damaged reputation in the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal.
It has continued its crackdown on ‘fake news’ by teaming up with MSM news outlets to fact-check news, and even went as far as partnering with NATO think tank the Atlantic Council for help in monitoring misinformation and foreign interference. The measures have been criticised by some for being partisan and biased.RT has reached out to the social media giant for comment on the billboards.
