• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

Facebook bans Alex Jones, other extremist figures

Trump Jr accuses Facebook of 'taking their censorship campaign to the next level'

Postby smix » Sun May 05, 2019 5:21 am

Trump Jr accuses Facebook of 'taking their censorship campaign to the next level'
The Hill

URL: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4 ... o-the-next
Category: Politics
Published: May 3, 2019

Description: Donald Trump Jr. on Friday said Facebook is "taking their censorship campaign to the next level" after the company banned from its platform an assortment of individuals the company described as "dangerous." The president's eldest son asserted in a tweet that Facebook and other big tech firms have engaged in the "purposeful & calculated silencing of conservatives," and it should "terrify everyone." "Ask yourself, how long before they come to purge you?" Trump Jr. wrote. "We must fight back."
The purposeful & calculated silencing of conservatives by @facebook & the rest of the Big Tech monopoly men should terrify everyone. It appears they’re taking their censorship campaign to the next level. Ask yourself, how long before they come to purge you? We must fight back.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 3, 2019

Facebook did not immediately respond to request for comment. The company on Thursday banned a host of prominent figures, including right-wing commentator and former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The bans, which extend to Facebook's image-sharing platform Instagram, include neo-Nazi and former political candidate Paul Nehlen and anti-Muslim provocateur Laura Loomer. Facebook said it decided to ban the figures after an extensive review of their behavior on the platform. The company said all of the individuals had contributed to the spread of hatred, whether by calling for violence against people based on their identity, following a hateful ideology, using hate speech or having slurs in their "About section." Nehlen has been kicked off of other social media platforms for spreading anti-Semitic and white supremacist views. Loomer was recently banned from Twitter after using anti-Muslim rhetoric against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Jones had previously been kicked off Facebook for a brief period for violating the site's policies. Most of the users' accounts were shut down by the end of Thursday, but left-leaning media group Media Matters for America said pages associated with Jones's InfoWars were still up on Friday afternoon. Trump Jr. and a growing chorus of Republicans, including the president, have accused the country's largest tech companies of discriminating against conservatives. The firms have pushed back on those allegations, saying critics have little evidence to back up their claims. All of the companies say they do not take political ideology into account when they enforce their policies. The social media companies are facing competing demands as civil rights groups and a growing number of Democrats call for them to remove hate speech and fear-mongering from their platforms, while Republicans call for the firms to exercise less control over what their users say.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Facebook Calls me ‘Dangerous’. Imagine My Shock. No, Really…

Postby smix » Fri May 10, 2019 10:54 am

Facebook Calls me ‘Dangerous’. Imagine My Shock. No, Really…
Human Events - Paul Joseph Watson

URL: https://humanevents.com/2019/05/08/face ... no-really/
Category: Politics
Published: May 8, 2019

Description: Facebook will shortly be put on legal notice about the harm that their actions have caused and will be mandated to turn over all information and internal discussions as to why I was designated as a “dangerous” person and why I was banned.

paul-joseph-watson-facebook.jpg

Last week I was permanently banned by Facebook for being a “dangerous person”. I found out about it not through Facebook, which failed to even send me a single email, but through media reports. They’ve put me in the same category as Louis Farrakhan, a man who compared Jews to termites and once described Adolf Hitler as a “very great man”. The Instagram (owned by Facebook) ban was even “funnier” given my page consisted mainly of selfies and videos of myself and my girlfriend feeding ducks. Super dangerous. But as humorous as it is, I take exception to being defamed as a “dangerous person”. To whom am I a danger, precisely? Mark Zuckerberg? A billionaire who wants to create a cult out of 2.4 billion people? A creepy oligarch who wants to dictate the thoughts that can be expressed by a third of the earth’s entire population? Who’s the bigger danger? In tandem with this ban, Facebook instituted a new policy which states if you post material about people Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t like, it will be removed and you may be banned. Talk about a dangerous fucking egotist. Holocaust denial? Still fine and rife across the platform. But defend Alex Jones or share an InfoWars link and you’re in big, big trouble. And according to the new left, it is now “progressive” to allow a handful of corporate monopolists to control who has free speech and what opinions they can communicate. What was the point of the trials of humanity over the past 300 years if we were just going to end up with some little nerds in California dictating the terms of human civilization to us from behind their MacBook screens? There’s also the absurdity of knowing that if someone who makes sardonic videos and snarky social media posts is that much of a threat to your establishment then your establishment must be really quite pathetic. I mean I’m hardly Robespierre. I make YouTube videos laughing at modern art and scoffing at brutalist architecture. If I’m that much of a “danger” to society, that’s more an illustration of how coddled and cowed western society has become. CNN also labeled me an “extremist”, which I also take exception with. I refuse to be defamed as an “extremist”, too. I have never advocated violence and I have never advocated “hate” against any individual or group. The establishment is putting me in the same category as human traffickers, serial killers, and terrorists. For what? Poking fun at pudgeball Michael Moore? Media personalities glibly repeated this characterization without citing any evidence for their proclamations. I won’t allow that to stand. Maajid Nawaz was awarded over $3 million dollars after being falsely labeled an “extremist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Like Nawaz, I have received death threats from Islamists. You know, actual extremists. I won’t allow a target to be painted on my back, which is exactly what Facebook and CNN are trying to do, and it isn’t like they don’t know it. Facebook will shortly be put on legal notice about the harm that their actions have caused and will be mandated to turn over all information and internal discussions as to why I was designated as a “dangerous” person and why I was banned. Lawyers tell me their behavior is “fairly extraordinary”. Meanwhile, what is anyone actually doing to stop the rapacious social media censorship of conservatives? While the President’s tweets about me last week were nice, tweets aren’t nearly enough. It’s not implausible to suggest that given the increasingly online nature of political campaigns, if platform neutrality is not secured, we could never see a Republican (or more accurately a true “America first” Republican) in the White House ever again. Will Chamberlain’s excellent article asserting that platform access is a civil right is a good place to start as a template for what must be done. Others argue Big Tech’s immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be revoked. If Facebook wants to act like a publisher and not a platform, let it be treated as a publisher. This would mean Facebook being legally liable for everything posted on their website. It’s my right as a website owner to deny anyone else access to post on that website. But that means I am personally responsible for the content on my website. Facebook wants to have its cake and eat it. Facebook wants to deny access while simultaneously eschewing responsibility. Why should we allow that? Also, isn’t it an extraordinary coincidence that leftists, notorious for their distrust of big corporations centralizing power and behaving with impunity, suddenly became massive fans of big corporations centralizing power and behaving with impunity when those corporations bought up the new public square and started censoring conservatives? It’s almost like they aren’t actually liberal, have no actual principles, and are just feverish authoritarians who want to harness the power of corporate behemoths to silence their ideological opposition. Isn’t it fascinating how leftists demand Christians bake the gay wedding cake under threat of financial decimation while reacting to Facebook refusing to provide a service with the tired old cliche, “It’s a private company, it can do what it likes.” I’ll use that line next time a fracking company wants to plough through your living room. The idea that leftists and self-proclaimed “journalists” – those who behave like activists in lobbying to deplatform conservatives – do so out of genuine concern for “hate,” “bullying” or “harassment” is also beyond ludicrous. These are some of the most hateful, vindictive people you could ever encounter. They abuse their power to deplatform conservatives in order to satiate their spiteful vendettas. And in some cases, to prove their credentials to their new paymasters. They derive sick pleasure from ruining people’s lives. The Daily Beast exposed Pamela Geller’s children. They weren’t even political. Geller has fatwas against her from Islamic terrorists and the American media exposed her children. If, God forbid, one of these deplatformed people commits suicide, many on the left will be popping champagne corks. They’ll be laughing it up. These are not nice people. When news broke of my Facebook ban, my Twitter direct mentions were flooded with vicious taunts and violent threats. But I’m the “hateful” one. Save me the sanctimonious crap about “hate,” “bullying” and “harassment”. We know why conservatives are being banned and it’s purely political. It’s a pre-2020 purge. This is election meddling. Anyone who watched the 2016 footage of Google executives mourning the election of Donald Trump and vowing to never let it happen again knows that for a fact. As Dr. Robert Epstein has documented, the power of Google and Facebook algorithms to shift millions of votes in elections is vast and unprecedented. Now we learn that Facebook will ensure “authoritative” (establishment) sources appear far more frequently in news feeds. It’s not sufficient to ban entire news outlets and prominent people – that’s not rigging the game enough – now they want to stack the deck even further against whoever’s left. Despite all this, there’s also a kind of lobotomized peacefulness surrounding the idea of escaping social media entirely. Because of the way it was designed to keep people addicted, social media is personally responsible for the largest mental health crisis of our generation. The prospect of fleeing that insane asylum (despite the obvious crippling impact on my ego, career, and financial security) doesn’t even sound all that bad.



Facebook Condones Violence Against ‘Dangerous Individuals’ Before Reversing Itself.
Human Events

URL: https://humanevents.com/2019/07/12/face ... ng-itself/
Category: Politics
Published: July 12, 2019

Description: Facebook’s latest policy update supported violence against Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones.
Facebook issued, and later deleted, a new policy stating its position supporting violence against banned figures like Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, both of whom have been banned from the platform. The update went live on the site’s Community Standards page before being retracted, following widespread online backlash. The update read:
“Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:
* Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
* Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy), or is described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports, market knowledge of news event, etc.”

In May, Facebook issued bans for a number of conservative political pundits including Paul Joseph Watson, whom they designated a “dangerous individual.” “[It] is now “progressive” to allow a handful of corporate monopolists to control who has free speech and what opinions they can communicate,” wrote Watson of his ban. “What was the point of the trials of humanity over the past 300 years if we were just going to end up with some little nerds in California dictating the terms of human civilization to us from behind their MacBook screens?” With the recent update, Facebook ostensibly deemed it permissible for its users to issue threats against Watson and other “dangerous individuals,” who have been cast alongside ISIS and other terrorist organizations, some of which continue to maintain large presences on the platform, including jihadist organizations like Hezbollah and Boko Haram, and the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Pages dedicated to these organizations can be easily found by typing their names into Facebook’s built-in search engine. As Watson says, violent threats issued against him on the platform are still considered illegal under U.K. law regardless of Facebook’s stance on the matter. “The largest social media company in the world with over 2 billion users literally says its fine to incite violence against me, despite this being illegal,” he wrote. “They are painting a target on my back.” Following a backlash on social media, Facebook has modified the policy update. The company issued a statement to explain that the language it previously used was “imprecise.” “The language we previously used to describe our policies against violence and incitement was imprecise. We have since replaced it to more clearly explain the policy and underlying rationale,” Facebook stated. “In some cases, we see aspirational or conditional threats directed at terrorists and other violent actors (e.g. Terrorists deserve to be killed), and we deem those non credible absent specific evidence to the contrary.” It’s worth noting that in addition to its tacit support of violence against “Dangerous Individuals,” the company also deemed it acceptable to threaten anyone “described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports.” In other words, if you’ve been judged guilty in the court of public opinion, you’re fair game.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Tucker: Mark Zuckerberg Now Controls What Political Opinions You’re Allowed to Have

Postby smix » Fri May 10, 2019 12:57 pm

Tucker: Mark Zuckerberg Now Controls What Political Opinions You’re Allowed to Have
Summit News

URL: https://summit.news/2019/05/04/tucker-m ... d-to-have/
Category: Politics
Published: May 4, 2019

Description: This is chilling.



Tucker Carlson: “Mark Zuckerberg is not simply censoring opinions, he proscribing which political opinions you’re allowed to have.” Merely appearing in a video or photo with someone Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t like is now enough to get you banned by Facebook. This is the Communist Chinese social credit system but instead controlled by giant corporations with more power than entire countries. Chilling.



Facebook Suspends Candace Owens For Saying Liberal Policies Incentivize Fatherless Homes
Summit News

URL: https://summit.news/2019/05/17/facebook ... ess-homes/
Category: Politics
Published: May 17, 2019

Description: “When a black woman begins discussing the TRUTH—which is that liberal policies have systematically ruined black homes—they censor”.
Facebook has truly jumped the shark. The social media monopoly has suspended activist and commentator Candace Owens for the crime of claiming that liberal policies incentivize fatherless homes in the black community. Owens was hit with a 7 day ban for posting, “Black America must wake up to the great liberal hoax. White supremacy is not a threat. Liberal supremacy is.” She then included a screenshot of a tweet which pointed out that the poverty rate amongst married blacks is 7 per cent, compared to 22 per cent for blacks generally. “My @facebook page has been suspended for 7 days for posting that white supremacy is not a threat to black America, as much as father absence and & liberal policies that incentivize it, are,” she tweeted. “I am censored for posting the poverty rates in fatherless homes.” “Facebook has allowed every post that has falsely and horribly accused @realDonaldTrump of white supremacy to remain on its platform,” said Owens. “But when a black woman begins discussing the TRUTH—which is that liberal policies have systematically ruined black homes—they censor.” Owens’ suspension follows Facebook permanently terminating the accounts of numerous high profile conservatives earlier this month (including yours truly) for absolutely no specific reason whatsoever. There can no longer even be a pretense that Facebook is acting with impartiality. It’s a Democratic Party front group. They are suspending or banning President Trump’s most prominent and influential supporters the year before a presidential election. The media freaked out over a few Russians buying Facebook ads. They called it “election meddling”. This is election meddling. We need huge investigations and anti-trust laws immediately. This has to happen now otherwise Trump can wave goodbye to the Oval Office in 2020.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Kassam Banned From Facebook on UK Election Day.

Postby smix » Sat May 25, 2019 11:23 pm

Kassam Banned From Facebook on UK Election Day.
Human Events

URL: https://humanevents.com/2019/05/24/kass ... ction-day/
Category: Politics
Published: May 24, 2019

Description: This is not the first time Kassam has been suspended from Facebook – it’s the third time this year.

kassam.jpg

Global Editor-in-Chief of Human Events Raheem Kassam was suspended from Facebook on the day of the EU parliamentary elections in the UK, hours before polls were due to close across the country. Kassam, a former senior advisor to Nigel Farage, had been in London reporting on the Brexit Party’s campaign when he was hit with a seven day ban for an 11-year-old post. Kassam said on Thursday, “I was trying to post an update about how people still had time left to vote, but apparently, that would have been too much democracy for Facebook. Or probably too much democracy on the side of which they know my followers would vote: Brexit”. The Human Events Editor-in-Chief could not access Facebook during the rest of election/polling day, where he has a personal reach of up to 8,000,000 per month on his 160,000+ fan page. He was also unable to post to the Human Events page, which has nearly 800,000 likes. The ban was ostensibly for an 11-yea-old comment wherein Kassam said “men can’t be women.” Kassam shared this post last month with the caption “How did I know all this trans sh*t was coming 11 years ago?” This is not the first time Kassam has been suspended from Facebook – it’s the third time this year. The first suspension came days before he was set to take the main stage of CPAC back in February and Kassam was provided no explanation from Facebook of why he was banned. News of the ban went viral on Twitter and after the President’s son Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about it, the ban was overturned. Kassam was suspended a second time at the end of April, receiving a three day suspension two days prior to the launch of Human Events. This ban locked him out of his personal Facebook, his fan page, and the Human Events Facebook page. The reasoning given for his second suspension was the post from 11 years ago which read “men can’t be women.” After the three days were up and Kassam was granted access to his account again, he received an email from an individual at Facebook that explained he engaged in “hate speech” and thus was in violation of the terms of service. The Human Events Editor-in-Chief is just one of many conservatives who have been censored across social media platforms. Human Events has been covering big tech’s bias against conservatives, with Publisher Will Chamberlain pioneering the idea platform access is a civil right. Since the release of Chamberlain’s article on the matter earlier this month, he and Kassam have been on Fox News, Fox Business, and i24 to discuss it.
--
UPDATE: On Friday morning, after election day, Kassam’s access to his page appeared to be restored, with no communication nor notification from Facebook either way.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

CrossFit Warns Those Who Engage In 'Activities Contrary to Prevailing Opinion' to Avoid Facebook

Postby smix » Sun May 26, 2019 4:54 am

CrossFit Warns Those Who Engage In 'Activities Contrary to Prevailing Opinion' to Avoid Facebook
Townhall

URL: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothyme ... o-n2546886
Category: Politics
Published: May 25, 2019

Description: As conservatives warn of the dangers of Silicon Valley's left-wing monopoly on political speech, one fitness and self-improvement company has jumped into the fray to discuss free speech on social media. Crossfit, the high-intensity gym program, released a statement this past Thursday slamming Facebook for the unexplained removal of its content as well the company's lack of self-responsibility as the "de facto authority over the public square, arbitrating a worldwide exchange of information as well as overseeing the security of the individuals and communities who entrust their ideas, work, and private data to this platform." "CrossFit is a contrarian physiological and nutrition prescription for improving fitness and health. It is contrarian because prevailing views of fitness, health, and nutrition are wrong and have unleashed a tsunami of chronic disease upon our friends, family, and communities," the statement began. The company then says that millions who use CrossFit and share its methodology stand "against an unholy alliance of academia, government, and multinational food, beverage, and pharmaceutical companies." The company says that it encourages and supports its adherents to "speak openly and freely about the ideas and principles that animate our views of exercise, nutrition, and health." In doing so, CrossFit has defended their beliefs "against overreaching governments, malicious competitors, and corrupt academic organizations." But, now Facebook has threatened that freedom, CrossFit argues. It all started when Facebook removed a group of CrossFitters with more than 1.65 million members without explanation. That group advocates low-carb, high-fat diets -- something that not everybody in the health community agrees upon. Due to this unexplained censorship, the company believes that "Facebook’s action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion." The company notes the group was reinstated, but that was never explained either. Due to Facebook's prominence in the free exchange of ideas, the company says that their status "mandates a certain responsibility and assurance of good faith, transparency, and due process." Because they failed to live up to that mandate, the company has removed itself from Facebook and its sister social media site, Instagram. "CrossFit, Inc., as a voluntary user of and contributor to this marketplace, can and must remove itself from this particular manifestation of the public square when it becomes clear that such responsibilities are betrayed or reneged upon to the detriment of our community." The statement then lists a litany of complaints which reads more like a Human Events column than one you might expect from a fitness group. These complaints include the fact that "Facebook collaborates with government security agencies on massive citizen surveillance programs such as PRISM," as well as arguing that "Facebook is thus complicit in the global chronic disease crisis," when it removes content. The company's warning and boycott serve as a reminder that Facebook, whether we like it or not, plays a massive and unparalleled role in the American way of life.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

CrossFit quits Facebook, Instagram, accuses social media giant of censorship, being 'utopian socialists'

Postby smix » Mon May 27, 2019 7:09 am

CrossFit quits Facebook, Instagram, accuses social media giant of censorship, being 'utopian socialists'
Fox News

URL: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/crossfit-q ... socialists
Category: Politics
Published: May 26, 2019

Description: CrossFit, the branded workout regimen, accused Facebook of being “utopian socialists” and left the platform after the social network deleted a group dedicated to a diet. The move to quit both Facebook and Instagram came in the wake of the decision to delete “without warning or explanation the Banting7DayMealPlan,” a group that advocated a diet aimed at eating “food that is as close to its natural state as possible — free from processing, additives, preservatives and sugar." The group suspension was later overturned, but CrossFit issued a lengthy statement announcing the end of their presence on the platform. “All activity on CrossFit, Inc.’s Facebook and Instagram accounts was suspended as of May 22, 2019, as CrossFit investigates the circumstances pertaining to Facebook’s deletion of the Banting7DayMealPlan and other well-known public complaints about the social-media company that may adversely impact the security and privacy of our global CrossFit community,” the statement read. The company provided eight “publicly sourced complaints” as the reasons for quitting. “Facebook collects and aggregates user information and shares it with state and federal authorities, as well as security organizations from other countries,” the first reason read. “Facebook collaborates with government security agencies on massive citizen surveillance programs such as PRISM,” CrossFit said in the second reason. “Facebook censors and removes user accounts based on unknown criteria and at the request of third parties including government and foreign government agencies,” it continued. “Facebook collects, aggregates, and sells user information as a matter of business. Its business model allows governments and businesses alike to use its algorithmically conjured advertising categories as sophisticated data-mining and surveillance tools.” The company then added that “Facebook’s news feeds are censored and crafted to reflect the political leanings of Facebook’s utopian socialists while remaining vulnerable to misinformation campaigns designed to stir up violence and prejudice.” The statement noted that CrossFit is a “voluntary user of and contributor to this marketplace, can and must remove itself from this particular manifestation of the public square when it becomes clear that such responsibilities are betrayed or reneged upon to the detriment of our community.” “Common decency demands that we do so, as do our convictions regarding fitness, health, and nutrition, which sit at the heart of CrossFit’s identity and prescription,” it added.



Jessica Melugin: Conservatives who want Facebook, other social media regulated should think twice
Fox News

URL: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jessica ... regulation
Category: Politics
Published: June 11, 2019

Description: There are growing calls from both sides of the political aisle for government regulation of speech on social media platforms, but letting government dictate what is acceptable speech is the very definition of censorship. It’s true that some right-of-center users have been suspended or banned from Twitter, put in “Facebook jail,” or had their videos or channels pulled from YouTube. However, in fairness, it’s also true that liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has had some of her content pulled from Facebook and that the company inadvertently labeled every ad with LGBT in it as political, whether it was or not. That both sides of the ideological spectrum have been dinged suggests that not every act of content moderation enforcement is politically motivated. Sometimes users have simply run afoul of the stated community standard rules. Facebook admitted in a 2018 letter that it likely has a 10 percent error rate in content moderation. Is government regulation the answer? No content moderation system is perfect, of course, but getting government involved will break companies’ imperfect systems completely. The only winners will be politicians empowered to deploy regulatory cudgels against critics and established social media firms, which can use those same rules to shield themselves against the competition. Calls from the right for new laws to dictate speech online show a complete disregard for the property rights limited government types profess to value. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube’s platforms are private property, not the public square, as they are often described. There is an important distinction between speaking one’s mind without fear of arrest or property seizure and being denied access to Facebook’s private property for violating the terms of service to which one agreed. Many calling for government regulation are threatening to withdraw the protections of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Before Congress passed Section 230, platforms worried that if they made or maintained any community standards for what user-posted content was allowed on their sites, they’d be treated as traditional publishers under the law and exposed to potentially crippling liability. Website hosts were faced with two choices: adopt either a hands-off approach that left platforms unusable and littered with ads, pornography, and undesirable content, or remove offending user-posted items and risk fatal amounts of legal jeopardy. Congress passed Section 230 explicitly to allow social media companies to make and enforce rules about content without fear of legal repercussions. Now critics of social media companies are demanding a return to the hands-off approach where no content rules exist or one in government is in charge of making the rules. Letting the government patrol content has never been a boon for conservative voices. The Federal Communications Commission’s defunct 1949 Fairness Doctrine, required broadcast license holders to align their content with what FCC regulators deemed honest, equitable, and balanced. In practice, the doctrine resulted in the stifling of speech deemed controversial because of the threat of federal investigations and fines. Conservatives also should consider the liberal bent of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcast Service before calling for federal guidelines. Need further proof that government regulation of speech on social media is a bad idea? Behold Mark Zuckerberg’s written request for it in a March Washington Post op-ed: “Regulation could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.” Zuckerberg calling for regulation? Isn’t regulation big business’ worst fear? Not when you’re the market leader like Facebook is right now. With a $478 billion market cap, Facebook will have a seat at the table when the regulations are crafted and can afford compliance costs. Not so for the next, yet-to-be-created, social media competitor. The yet unknown next big thing in social media won’t have the freedom Zuckerberg enjoyed when he was building Facebook and given a new regulatory environment with high barriers to entry, perhaps that new competitor won’t even come into existence. Facebook will have locked its market leader position into place with the help of the federal government. Calls from the political left for the regulation of speech on social media are at least consistent. Progressives generally favor more government regulation across the board. The online world is no exception. Facebook’s willingness to be regulated is also clear; the company would lock its lead in place in exchange for content rules it likely agrees with and will shape during the rulemaking process. Conservatives should think twice before endorsing government policing of speech online. They won’t like the rules they get and will regret selling out their principles to get them.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy

Postby smix » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:56 am

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy
NBC News

URL: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ ... d-n1045416
Category: Politics
Published: August 22, 2019

Description: Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign, from any future advertising on the platform.

leftbook.jpg

The decision follows an NBC News report that The Epoch Times had shifted its spending on Facebook in the last month, seemingly in an effort to obfuscate its connection to some $2 million worth of ads that promoted the president and conspiracy theories about his political enemies. "Over the past year we removed accounts associated with the Epoch Times for violating our ad policies, including trying to get around our review systems," a Facebook spokesperson said. "We acted on additional accounts today and they are no longer able to advertise with us." Facebook's decision came as a result of a review prompted by questions from NBC News. The spokesperson explained that ads must include disclaimers that accurately represent the name of the ad's sponsors. The Epoch Times' new method of pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy ads on Facebook, which appeared under page names such as "Honest Paper" and "Pure American Journalism," allowed the organization to hide its multimillion-dollar spending on dark-money ads, in effect bypassing Facebook's political advertising transparency rules. Facebook's ban will affect only The Epoch Times' ability to buy ads; the sock-puppet pages created to host the new policy-violating ads were still live at the time of publication. Nicholas Fouriezos, a reporter for the website OZY, tweeted about the move Thursday. It was first spotted last week by Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast. A recent NBC News investigation revealed how The Epoch Times had evolved from a nonprofit newspaper that carried a Chinese-American religious movement's anti-communism message into a conservative online news behemoth that embraced President Donald Trump and conspiracy content. The religious group that quietly operates the paper believes in a coming judgment day that will send communists to hell and says Trump is helping accelerate that timeline.

hk-epoch-times.jpg

Since 2016, The Epoch Times' revenue more than doubled, and the reach of its online content rocketed past that of every other news organization, attracting billions of views across its many platforms. It also became a player on the conservative media stage, securing interviews with Trump Cabinet members, loyalists and family members, as well as members of Congress and Republican media stars. Until mid-July, The Epoch Times had placed its ads through accounts that clearly labeled their affiliation to the wider organization. Through the umbrella account, Coverage of the Trump Presidency by The Epoch Times, the news organization spent $1.5 million on more than 11,000 Trump-friendly Facebook ads within the last year. In May, after a popular newsletter from the progressive nonprofit ACRONYM highlighted The Epoch Times' major Facebook spending, journalist Judd Legum noted in his newsletter how many of the ads were in violation of Facebook's policies. NBC News reporters reached out to The Epoch Times in June, prompting a defensive open letter from the site's publisher. By July, The Epoch Times' official accounts were no longer running any ads on Facebook, according to searches of Facebook's Ad Library, its transparency tool that is supposed to make it easy to find information behind ads "related to politics or issues of national importance." The ads are still running, just not under the official accounts. By mid-July, Epoch Times ads had shifted to multiple pages with opaque names such as Honest Paper, Patriots of America, Pure American Journalism and Best News. Other Epoch Times ads were sponsored by a now-defunct page called The News Express. The Epoch Times has spent more than $450,000 on thousands of ads from these five accounts in the last 30 days. It is unclear whether there are other accounts. Multiple anonymous patrons now appear on the "paid for" section of each ad. Where Epoch Times ads used to be clearly marked as being paid for by The Epoch Times, ads now claim to have been paid for by groups such as "Chronicle Media" or "MarketFuel Subscription Services." The new ads prompt potential customers to visit similarly generic websites, such as genuinenewspaper.com and truthandtradition.news, websites registered privately on July 24 and 25, respectively, according to a search on DomainTools, a domain-research company. Those sites both redirect to The Epoch Times' subscription page. The Epoch Times' publisher, Stephen Gregory, did not return a request for comment. The growth and legitimacy of The Epoch Times are due in large part to Facebook, where it placed $2 million in pro-Trump ads in the last year, more than any other organization outside Trump's re-election campaign and more than what most of the Democratic presidential candidates spent on their own campaigns in the same time.

xi-zuckerberg.jpg

Brendan Steinhauser, a Republican strategist who advised The Epoch Times on how to break into the broader conservative movement, told NBC News that he arranged its introduction to CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, and arranged dozens of interviews with right-wing newsmakers. Although he doesn't manage their social media strategy — Steinhauser said The Epoch Times handles that internally — he said creating multiple pages and accounts without clearly labeling their connection to the wider organization was a common practice used by public relations or political campaigns to bring in subscribers and donors.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Book binds Zuckerberg to Xi Jinping

Postby smix » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:43 am

Book binds Zuckerberg to Xi Jinping
China Daily

URL: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/20 ... 084866.htm
Category: Politics
Published: December 15, 2014

Description: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg appears so enamoured with Chinese President Xi Jinping's book, The Governance of China, that after reading it he ordered several copies for his staff.

zuckerberg-jinping.jpg

This is not to say that purchasing a copy of The Governance of China is particularly difficult. Published in September, it has already been translated into nine languages. The book, a collection of speeches by Xi, appears on Zuckerberg's desk in a photograph taken recently at Facebook's Menlo Park office in California. The international media and worldwide public reaction to the photograph has understandably been little short of a wild frenzy, with many vilifying Zuckerberg for supposedly "kowtowing to the Chinese" in an attempt to make economic gains by getting Facebook an entry into China's market. But does Zuckerberg deserve such castigating comments? And should not Zuckerberg be commended for perhaps taking a genuine interest in contemporary China? On an economic level, Zuckerberg and Facebook certainly do not deserve such criticism, for companies the world over, especially established Western brands, are known to have taken a similar approach to expand their markets without being criticized. What the critics have missed is the crux of the matter, that is, the wider issue of gaining in-depth knowledge of all aspects of contemporary China under the leadership of Xi. Thanks to China's miraculous economic rise over the past more than 30 years, far too many ethnocentric eyes still eye the Chinese market to fill their coffers. But very few take time out to gain any meaningful understanding of the complexities and intricacies of the real China, the Chinese political system in particular.

zuckerberg-china.jpg

The United States government is a prime culprit when it comes to an extremely ethnocentric "examination" of the Chinese government, while remaining conspicuously silent over revelations of barbaric torturing methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency on terrorism suspects.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Mark Zuckerberg snapped with Chinese President Xi Jinping's book

Postby smix » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:59 am

Mark Zuckerberg snapped with Chinese President Xi Jinping's book
Sydney Morning Herald

URL: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/mark- ... 233er.html
Category: Politics
Published: December 9, 2014

Description: Beijing: A Chinese government news portal has released a photo of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg with a copy of Chinese President Xi Jinping's book on governance on his desk while hosting a top internet regulator from China, known for tight censorship. Mr Zuckerberg, who has long sought market access to China, where Facebook is blocked, was quoted by China.com.cn as saying he bought several copies of Mr Xi's book so he and colleagues could learn about "socialism with Chinese characteristics".

zuckerberg-xi-jinping-book.jpg

The California-based company did not immediately respond to inquiries regarding the visit to Facebook's offices by internet regulator Lu Wei. The gesture, interpreted as an effort by Mr Zuckerberg to court the government, disappointed and angered activists in China, who have long held the social networking company in high regard for its ability to share information beyond the controls of the ruling Communist Party. "Mr Zuckerberg is either ignorant of China's politics or shameless," said prominent dissident Hu Jia, who called Mr Lu a top enemy of internet freedom and expressed worry that technology giants such as Facebook were kowtowing to Beijing for their own business interests. "He is an internet genius who should understand the power of technology for social change." China.com.cn, controlled by China's Internet Information Office and another government agency, said the photo was taken at Facebook's Menlo Park office and that Mr Xi's book The Governance of China was at Mr Zuckerberg's workstation when he hosted Mr Lu. "I bought this book for my colleagues as well," Mr Zuckerberg was quoted as telling Mr Lu. "I want them to understand socialism with Chinese characteristics." The photo shows a beaming Mr Lu sitting in Mr Zuckerberg's work chair, with the Facebook founder smiling and standing next to him.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Epoch Times the Latest to Face the Left’s Blueprint for Attacking When They Can’t Argue With the Facts

Postby smix » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:26 pm

Epoch Times the Latest to Face the Left’s Blueprint for Attacking When They Can’t Argue With the Facts
The Epoch Times

URL: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epoch-tim ... 55424.html
Category: Politics
Published: August 26, 2019

Description: There used to be recognition even among left-leaning journalists that there’s enough wrongdoing in Washington to go around—that there are plenty of valid stories critical of Democrats, just as there are of Republicans. But in recent years, they’ve abandoned the biggest thrill of their profession—finding official misconduct, a scoop—in favor of trying to throw cold water on investigative stories that did not fit their agenda. This normally entails credulously repeating the claims of defense attorneys, self-interested public officials or foreign regimes, and doing it with relish. I saw it first-hand when I exposed corruption, cyber-breaches and coverup on Capitol Hill during the 2016 election—what became the subject of my book, “Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect the Democrats.” My investigation raised issues that required urgent attention, but instead, Democrats’ reaction was crude: my reporting appeared in the conservative-leaning Daily Caller News Foundation, and somehow, they claimed, that negated the highly specific and amply documented facts presented. The politicians involved knew better than anyone that the facts were real. But their message worked on the media: I’d spent a year investigating, yet a recent college graduate at the New York Times seemed to think one day of calls with a defense attorney connected to Hillary Clinton meant he knew the facts better than I did. He was being manipulated—and, in turn, was manipulating others. The Epoch Times became the latest to be smeared with this playbook by NBC News this month. In fact, I saw, a specific strategy is routinely deployed to dismiss pesky facts without actually disproving them. It follows a blueprint:
* Ad-hominem: A partisan implies that a news story is wrong because of the outlet it appeared in, without having to point to a single error.
* Identity politics: The allegation that the wrongdoers in a story are only being pursued—without disputing their wrongdoing—because of bias such as racism, partisanship, or homophobia.
* Straw-man: They conflate the content at issue with something entirely separate, and show that to be false. In my case, media outlets pointed to an obscure Youtuber who had latched onto the subject of my reporting as a starting point for nonsensical ramblings. They used the passive voice to cleverly make it seem like I had said things that this unemployed Youtuber had said, then debunked that. In the Epoch case, NBC blurred bona fide FBI corruption with the conspiracy “Q-anon.”
* Ignore: A willful incuriosity on the part of the legacy media. The nature of investigative reporting is that proof is not in plain view. But when the topic doesn’t fit the pre-existing narrative, they choose not to look into objectively curious circumstances, then say they have seen no proof.
* Guilt by association: Since the liberal media has ignored the reporting, the only people sharing it will be conservatives. Then they diminish reporting by saying that it is “popular with” or shared by Republicans, as if that makes it untrue.
* Complicated: Eventually, a significant mass of reporting accumulates, and since it has been ignored instead of being digested in real-time on the national news, it becomes a lot for latecomers to catch up with. When it gets threatening enough, “fact-checking” journalists swoop in, summarize the basic premise incorrectly, and demand that the entire case be argued in one sentence. Then they dismiss it as “complicated” or “confusing”—as if not bothering to take the time to assess facts means they’re wrong.
* Government stenographer: The media resigns itself to the role of court clerk, simply transcribing criminal convictions. No criminal conviction means nothing happened. But throughout history, the best journalists have exposed wrongdoing that authorities had failed to address, spurring important reforms. And what happens when the subject of the reporting is misconduct by those government investigators themselves?
These factors culminate in the legacy media’s favorite new smear: “conspiracy theory.” When you’re a reporter on the wrong side of it—pursuing truth in the face of coverup—it can be lonely. My understanding that this was a well-formed tactic designed to suppress inconvenient truths was cemented when I became acquainted with many of the Epoch Times’ senior editors, who I found to be among the hardest-working and most diligent professionals in the news business. I read Epoch’s coverage daily and found it detailed and specific. Its reporters followed clues wherever they led, instead of looking to reinforce a pre-existing narrative. Months before anyone else, they had transcripts of key, top-secret interviews by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Legacy media ignored these transcripts as unconfirmed or alleged. They had to: it was embarrassing that a scrappy, upstart newsroom had managed to scoop them on such a prominent story. When those transcripts were eventually declassified, Epoch was quietly vindicated. In the NBC hit job, the multi-billion dollar corporation attacked the paper on the grounds that its supporters included followers of a spiritual practice that had been banned in atheist communist China. The Chinese government has killed members of the group and harvested their organs, a British panel found “without doubt” in June.

Image

The NBC reporters may have had little grasp of global affairs, and they unwittingly carried water for a massive, oppressive China government. It’s been said that the best journalism afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted. Apparently, that’s an outdated notion. This appeared to be a bizarre attempt to attack President Trump—who liberals call racist and oppressive—by punching down against an oppressed religious minority. Epoch’s crime, in NBC’s view, was approaching news coverage with the premise that authority is something to be questioned and scrutinized. Never mind that the Chinese dissidents who founded the Epoch Times arrived at this worldview by encountering a communist government up close and personal. Suffice it to say, they know more about big government than the NBC writers. Epoch’s so-called “conspiracy theory” was its stellar Spygate coverage. For two years, it was among the front of the pack, following the truth instead of being part of an echo chamber. The irony is that meanwhile, the New York Times and NBC pushed what can only be called an actual conspiracy theory—that Trump is a secret double agent for Russia. Not only Robert Mueller’s government office, but also all the resources of every major news outlet in America, firms like Fusion GPS, and even a $50 million oppo research fund managed to dredge up not a scintilla of proof of that. But another lesson I learned is that, no matter how high up in government or media you are, one’s primary motivator is always emotional and psychological: the need to save face. In that respect, can you blame NBC? Its journalists spent two years digging themselves into a hole. They can’t admit that they bungled a story, or that others got it right, because the consequences would be fatal to their reputations and their careers. Apparently, now they’ve dug a hole so deep that it’s reached China.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1852034
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Free Speech & Censorship


Mobile Device
  • 1
  • FREE CLASSIFIED ADS
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement