Facebook, Twitter Censor Thread

[Lenno]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Funded by Google and George Soros, a group of leftist foundations have organized a “Fake News” war against the GOP, claiming that Republicans have voted to overturn Obama administration FCC rules designed to “protect Internet privacy.”
Three entities – Google, Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation – have contributed more than $72 millionsince roughly 2006 to non-profits that have been most active in pushing net neutrality, as well as privacy rules on the broadband industry to give the government a firm foothold in regulating the Internet.
The grant amounts were gathered from public resources including non-profit 990 tax forms, the non-profits’ web pages and other public sources.

A 2015 study released by the Media Research Center estimated that the Ford Foundation and Soros’ Open Society Foundations alone had contributed more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013, funding various efforts launched Netroots Nation, the leftist Internet political activist convention originally launched by Daily Kos readers and writers
Google’s interest in privacy rules for ISPs and broadband providers should be self-evident: The draconian privacy rules only apply to Google’s competitors in the broadband industry, leaving Google – arguably the world’s worst violator of online privacy – virtually unscathed.



Google, one of the most powerful companies in the world, and one that routinely preaches an ethos of openness and transparency, is surprisingly non-transparent when it comes to its own contributions to organizations that support a government takeover of the Internet.

While the company has a “transparency” web page, it is largely a fig leaf – a token list of the non-profits it supports currently and in the past – offering no details of the often-staggering amounts of funding it provides to the groups that support its public policy goals.
The truth is Google and Soros are pushing a complete distortion of the issue in the Fake News war launched against the GOP on issues including net neutrality and Internet privacy.
The truth is the left wants to control the Internet to impose censorship of conservatives, while Google has made millions of dollars quietly selling to third-parties the massive amount of information Google has harvested by monitoring web-browsing and collecting GSP location data, typically without the knowledge or consent of Google users.
What truly is involved with the Internet privacy issue traces back to a last-hour effort by the Obama administration, getting the Democratic Party-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to rule on Oct. 27, 2016, that Internet providers like Verizon, Comcast Corp and AT&T had to obtain prior authorization from customers to market information mined from a customer’s web-browsing activity before selling that data to third parties.
As Breitbart News revealed, the truth about the party-line House vote on Thursday to overturn this rule was that the Obama administration last October was attempting to move regulation of privacy issues into the domain of the FCC, instead of the Federal Trade Commission, where privacy regulation has traditionally resided.
“The FCC already has the ability to oversee privacy with broadband providers,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, explained to Breitbart.com. “That is done primarily through Section 222 of the Communications Act, and additional authority is granted through Sections 201 and 202. Now, what they did was to go outside of their bounds and expand that.”
“They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC.”
“They have traditionally been our nation’s primary privacy regulator, and they have done a very good job of it,” Blackburn continued.
What the GOP did by overturning the FCC privacy rule was to reverse Obama administration overreach, preventing the Obama administration from expanding the authority of the FCC to regulate the Internet such that censorship rules could be read into privacy regulations should the Democrats resume control of the White House in the future.
The GOP did not want the FCC, the traditional regulation of communications technology, including radio and television, to reach into established FTC authority to regulate privacy issues.
The GOP recalled the FCC Internet privacy rules and gave authority back to the FTC.
“The FTC has the ability to protect consumers, and that is what they do. They are the primary regulator,” Blackburn told Breitbart. “But let’s say an ISP begins to sell that data, then there would be complaints filed, and the FCC would go after that broadband provider under the regulations that are on the books.”

[Lenno]

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Many of your favorite YouTubers could be about to disappear,” political and social commentator Paul Joseph Watson warns (note some language is NSFW). He’s referring to how the video-sharing giant is categorizing popular conservative issue proponents as “extremist” and limiting their audiences by placing them in “restricted” mode.

“Why does the media want to silence me? It’s because I’m kicking their @$$ and they can’t win the argument on a level playing field … They’re clearly building the narrative that anyone who even hints at challenging the leftist dogma on anything is an extremist and must be silenced.”

Censorship by the social media giants appears to be a plan to salvage exclusive gatekeeper status for those the “progressives” want us to get our information from, the people I call “Authorized Journalists.” They've been desperate to shut down the upstarts ever since they sensed the competition meant they were no longer needed. Back in 2009, one of their mouthpieces was even proposing:

“[P]erhaps the best way to limit the avalanche is to make the technologies that overproduce information more expensive and less widespread … via a progressive energy tax …”

That plan to use coercive and confiscatory government taxes to suppress information appears to have gone nowhere, so now the social media giants are taking the task on themselves.

Zuckerberg has the ear of world leaders at APEC – Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. [Facebook]So aside from developing censorship tools to gain access approval from totalitarian regimes like China, Facebook takes it on itself to suppress views not shared by “progressive” CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Through its Orwellian-named “Initiative for Civil Courage Online” and other policy directives designed to stifle and even remove alternative thought, “conservative” views are being deemed “racist,” “xenophobic” and “hateful,” or “fake news.”Twitter is also taking steps to control what it will allow and what it will restrict. Aside from its notorious banning of gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, per a recent Breitbart report:

“Twitter has confirmed it is experimenting with graying out the profiles of users it deems are posting ‘sensitive content,’ displaying a warning to others before they can read their tweets.”

Not offensive or hateful, right Twitter?It’s curious how they missed Marxist parasites flipping off communist genocide victims. I guess that’s not hateful or offensive enough.
So who determines “sensitive content,” and specifically those who should be regarded as “haters”?
Colleague Herschel Smith at “The Captain’s Journal” notes Google’s guidelines for determining “offensive” content defers to some of the usual suspects:

“Reputation research is important for identifying websites which promote hate and violence. The Pew Research Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are some reputable sources that can be used for reputation research.”

Oh really?
This creature has a voice in which news is “fake”?And who are the arbiters of news that’s real and news that’s “fake”… ?
How about totally unqualified “leftwing moonbats”?
Readers of my blog, “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance” have seen regular instances of my work, including exclusive AmmoLand Shooting Sports News reports, that have been removed from the Google News feed. What that means is much of the stuff that is not being reported by anyone else is confined to the echo chamber of regular readers, and dependent for further propagation either by readers taking it on themselves to share links or via social media like Facebook or Twitter.
And what that means is … well, here, let me give you an example you can see for and prove to yourself: This link (now limited to the relatively obscure Internet Archive/Wayback Machine because the host site is no more) shows the hundreds of reports my late friend and colleague Mike Vanderboegh and I did exposing Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” before the “mainstream media” even noticed it. Most of it has remained ignored even though our early reports have been vindicated by what has since been uncovered, and there’s no reason to think the unexplored claims wouldn’t bear out if those with the resources to do so investigated them.
It's a big club and we ain't in it.It probably will never happen because Mike and I weren’t “real reporters.”
Noting the reason behind letting guns walk to Mexico (it was, as an ATF source noted from the outset, “to pad statistics,” not the “botched gun sting” misdirection that mainstream outlets would have us believe), it’s easy to see how closing off social media venues for sharing such information is a direct threat to gun owners being able to get the information they need to protect their rights.
I realize many gun owners won’t have anything to do with social media, and expect to see comments here to that effect. I would argue that is a squandering of resources, and cedes an ideological battlespace to the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s curious that whenever “conservative” messengers start to gain traction in the marketplace, “progressives” try to use government coercion to shut them down and regain an enforced lead. We saw it with the internet tax proposal and we have seen it proposed against “right wing talk radio” with calls for the FCC to reinstitute the Opposite Day “Fairness Doctrine.”
Using the chair they not shy about picking up in this particular bar fight, the case could be made that Facebook, Google, and Twitter respectively hold near-monopolies on the services they provide. Acting in concert and with full knowledge of each others’ policies to reward “right thinking” and punish “wrong thinking” seems effectively an act of collusion.

[RamRoddoc]

YouTube,

http://www.juliegolob.com/keep-your-...ou-dont-matter

[Lenno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoq1JAuzRfM

[Lenno]

History Repeating – Ahead of French Election Facebook Blocks 30,000 Accounts…

Posted on April 14, 2017 by sundance
A report surfaces today that Facebook has shut down 30,000 user accounts from France. The French election is in 10 days and given the nature of Facebook’s political activity in shaping national elections many are seeing a connection.

[…] In a blog post, Facebook said it was acting against 30,000 fake accounts in France. It said its priority was to remove suspect accounts with high volumes of posting activity and the biggest audiences. –link–

Facebook was first used as a political tool during the Egyptian uprising in 2010. It was the introduction and coordinated use of social media which led to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and the installation of Mohammed Morsi. Additionally, WikiLeaks earlier released evidence showing the CIA was previously used in the 2012 French election to shape the outcome.
A week before the WikiLeaks release highlighting the CIA’s prior involvement, CNN was pushing a narrative that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the psychology of the French election. The WikiLeaks release in combination with the CNN story showed two interested entities fighting for influence. The U.S. State Dept. through CNN and Russia through WikiLeaks – Outlined Here –
Why would they do this? Well, those of you who have followed the historic research on the State Department might well remember the “Rivkin Project“. The globalist agents, multinational interests, are simply not willing to concede another loss in their decades long approach toward eliminating nationalist sentiment.
Continue reading →

[Lenno]

Soros-Funded Groups Push to Exempt Facebook, Google From FCC Rules

Google, Facebook exempt from Obama-era FCC “Net Neutrality” rules

https://www.infowars.com/soros-funde...rom-fcc-rules/

[Lenno]

Facebook is Censoring Legal Discussion of Guns

• Home
• World

By Kieran Corcoran | 4:46 am, May 24, 2017

• 
  

The social media news story of the week is the massive leak of internal Facebook content moderation policies – which has focused, unsurprisingly, on sex and graphic violence.
But amid the flood of content on which Facebook has issued guidelines for its overstretched army of moderators, the one pertaining to guns has got relatively little attention:


The restrictions around how you can depict and discuss firearms on the network is weirdly harsh – especially given that elsewhere the network has taken a lax approach to threats of violence, and even live broadcasts of suicide.
Facebook will let you depict a gun without comment, and also depict a gun in the context of hunting.
Advertisement



Unusual Country Laws: What Not To Take On Vacation!
Planning on taking your spectacles to Paraguay? Think again! There are laws against this stuff.
Ad by BX



But expressing any desire to buy a gun will get you banned – even if the purpose of ownership is apparently benign.
Anyone can understand why Facebook would remove images of guns linked to threats of violence against people.
You can also see why they might not want people to start using Facebook as an underground marketplace for selling their old guns.
But the rule as written doesn’t say that – it would include a post saying “wow, I sure would like to add a Glock G42 to my collection”.
Expressing a wish to own a gun – which in the US is a constitutionally-protected activity – is apparently disallowed.
Its advice on gun images is included under the “threats” category.
However, according to the advice, gun images need not be accompanied by an actual threat – bizarre given that the possibility of real-world violence is the standard adopted elsewhere.
Heat Street invited a Facebook spokesman to comment on the policy, but could not get a straight answer. Despite repeated requests, a spokesman would only say, enigmatically, that “context is extremely important”.
The vast majority of gun owners are peaceful, the vast majority of gun purchases do not end in any crime or violence.
But Facebook is, effectively, treating gun ownership as an inherent threat.
Though imperfect, the leaked documents show that on most topics Facebook is at least trying very hard to take a nuanced approach, and limit unjust censorship.
On the issue of guns, however, Facebook appears to have a massive blind spot

[Lenno]

Add Patreon and UTube to the growing Globalist Police State
212017PAYPAL & other Online Payment/Donation services kicking conservatives and counterjihadists off their sites

BNI Readers already know that PAYPAL kicked BNI off their service without providing a reason and refusing to return the balance in the account for 180 days.


What you don’t know is this seems to be happening to others who are fighting Islamization and mass Muslim illegal migration. But it isn’t just Paypal, other Online Payment/Donation services are doing the same.

I was initially accepted by WePay but after two weeks, they kicked me off saying something about Terms of Service. At least they returned my balance in the account immediately.


I submitted an application to Authorize.net and was initially accepted, then rejected a few days later without any explanation.


I just submitted an application to PATREON where patrons support writers, musicians, artists, and other creative people by sending monthly donations. So far, I am approved, but judging by the below video, it’s only a matter of time before they say ‘NO’ too.


h/t Henry P
Once again, I would like to thank everyone who has so kindly been sending checks by mail. I realize it is a lot more trouble than just clicking a few links or signing up for automatic online monthly donations. I continue to search for a service that doesn’t discriminate against political opinions with which it disagrees.

Until then, please email me if you would like to send a check for details about where to send it.

[RamRoddoc]

Thanks Lenno, I particular liked the ending where she told them to suck her balls... Hehhehhehhehh, it's so wrong but I literally peed myself.

[Ferris]

In regards to censorship from fakebook, O have been censored a few times, as have multiple others when talking about vaccines and vaccine safety....

So much for free speech