Methinks the reason behind all this effort to curb extremism from these social media monopolies is simple, follow the money. Look at this statement, it shows that Google’s YouTube does not have to pay 30% of its users. That’s plenty of money. And they hide behind “for the good of humanity” bullshit:
“Starting at the end of last year, the company had already begun altering its algorithm so that 30% of its videos were demonetized. The company had explained that it wanted YouTube to be a safer place for brands to advertise, but the move has angered many content producers who generate income with their video channels.”
ANTIMEDIAWritten by Jake Anderson If you’re a radical or search for “extremist” content online, the biggest social networks and internet companies on Earth will soon be converting you into a docile moderate, or at least, they will try.
Facebook, Google, and Twitter have been screening and filtering extremist content for years, but on Wednesday, the gatekeepers of the internet confirmed to Congress that they are accelerating their efforts and will target users who may be exposed to extremist/terrorist content, redirecting them instead to “positive and moderate” posts.
Representatives for the three companies testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to outline specific ways they are trying to combat extremism online. Facebook, Google, and Twitter aren’t just tinkering with their algorithms to restrict certain kinds of violent content and messaging. They’re also using machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to manufacture what they call “counterspeech,” which has a hauntingly Orwellian ring to it. Essentially, their goal is to catch burgeoning extremists, or people being radicalized online, and re-engineer them via targeted propagandistic advertisements.
Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, stated:
“We believe that a key part of combating extremism is preventing recruitment by disrupting the underlying ideologies that drive people to commit acts of violence. That’s why we support a variety of counterspeech efforts.”
Meanwhile, Google’s YouTube has deployed something called the “Redirect Method,” developed by Google’s Jigsaw research group. With this protocol, YouTube taps search history metrics to identify users who may be interested in extremist content and then uses targeted advertising to counter “hateful” content with “positive” content. YouTube has also invested in a program called “Creators for Change,” a group of users that makes videos opposed to hate speech and violence. Additionally, the video platform has tweaked their algorithm to reduce the reach of borderline content.
In his testimony, Juniper Downs, YouTube’s head of public policy, said, “Our advances in machine learning let us now take down nearly 70% of violent extremism content within 8 hours of upload and nearly half of it in 2 hours.”
On the official YouTube blog, the company discussed how they plan to disrupt the “radicalization funnel” and change minds. The four steps include:
“Expanding the new YouTube product functionality to a wider set of search queries in other languages beyond English.
Using machine learning to dynamically update the search query terms.
Working with expert NGOs on developing new video content designed to counter violent extremist messaging at different parts of the radicalization funnel.
Collaborating with Jigsaw to expand the ‘Redirect Method’ in Europe.”
Starting at the end of last year, the company had already begun altering its algorithm so that 30% of its videos were demonetized. The company had explained that it wanted YouTube to be a safer place for brands to advertise, but the move has angered many content producers who generate income with their video channels.
The effort to use machine learning and AI as part of a social engineering funnel is probably not new, but we’ve never seen it openly wielded on a vast scale by a government-influenced corporate consortium. To say the least, it is unsettling for many. One user commented underneath the post, “So if you have an opinion that’s not there [sic] agenda You are a terrorist. Free speech is dead on YouTube.”
For its part, Twitter’s representative told Congress that since 2015 the company had taken part in over 100 training events focused on how to reduce the impact of extremist content on the platform.
In a post called “Introducing Hard Questions” on its blog, Facebook discussed rethinking the “meaning of free expression.” The post posed a number of hypothetical questions, including:
How aggressively should social media companies monitor and remove controversial posts and images from their platforms? Who gets to decide what’s controversial, especially in a global community with a multitude of cultural norms?
Who gets to define what’s false news — and what’s simply controversial political speech?”
The three tech giants have been under intense scrutiny from lawmakers who feel the platforms have been used to sow division online and even recruit homegrown terrorists. While the idea of using an algorithm to fight extremism online is not new, a unified front of Facebook, Google, and Twitter has never collectively produced original online propaganda, the specifics and scope of which remain vague despite the companies’ attempts at transparency.
Only recently, in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), was the use of propaganda on the American people by the government formally legalized. Then-President Barack Obama continued strengthening government propaganda at the end of his administration with the dystopic Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act of 2017, which created a kind of Ministry of Truth for the creation of so-called “fact-based narratives.”
It appears that while the government continues to strengthen its potential to conduct psychological operations (psyops), it is also joining forces with internet gatekeepers that can use their algorithms to shape billions of minds online. While one may applaud the ostensible goal of curbing terrorist recruitment, the use of psyops for social engineering and manufacturing consent could extend far beyond the original intent.
Youtube announced this week that it will be demonetizing all accounts which do not meet a certain threshold in followers.
YouTube alienated a large portion of its audience this week by demonetizing all of their smaller content creators. In an email sent out to millions of independent artists, musicians, and journalists, YouTube informed them that they were no longer eligible for advertising revenue on the site because their channels were simply not big enough.
The site now requires a minimum of 1000 subscribers and 4000 hours of viewed content, automatically disqualifying a large chunk of their creators from monetization.
Below is an email that the company sent out to up and coming Youtubers:
A statement from YouTube read:
“These higher standards will also help us prevent potentially inappropriate videos from monetizing which can hurt revenue for everyone. Though these changes will affect a significant number of channels, 99% of those affected were making less than $100 per year in the last year, with 90% earning less than $2.50 in the last month. Any of the channels who no longer meet this threshold will be paid what they’ve already earned based on our AdSense policies. After thoughtful consideration, we believe these are necessary compromises to protect our community.”
The company also said that the change in policy was intended to “prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators around the world who make their living on YouTube.”
However, having a small channel does not make someone a “bad actor,” in fact, some of the worst and most inappropriate content has come from the whales of YouTube, not the little fish. It is also important to mention that with this new policy, if a smaller channel has a video go viral overnight, and suddenly reaches the threshold, they may not be able to monetize this potentially once in a lifetime opportunity. This certainly ends up helping YouTube and hurting independent media.
But this should be expected.
As The Free Thought Project reported last year, a group of whistleblowers from YouTube claimed that the company has allowed at least 100,000 predatory accounts to leave inappropriate comments on videos with no repercussions as “YouTube’s system for reporting sexualized comments left on children’s videos has not been functioning correctly for more than a year.”
The moderators, who are referred to as YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers,” are charged with flagging inappropriate content and reporting the users who are violating the platform’s policies. However, they claim that in many cases, the accounts they report face no consequences. These accounts have millions of subscribers and these videos have hundreds of millions of views, and many of them would be unaffected by this change.
Many smaller YouTubers are placing the blame on the likes of Logan Paul or PewDiePie who have made headlines with insensitive and racist material. Although, whales like PewDiePie have no problems with the new rules, as it wipes out some of their competition.
This is a devastating situation for may content creators, but luckily there is a solution on the blockchain. Many of the YouTubers who have become disenfranchised with the site are moving their content to DTube, which is a decentralized video hosting platform where users are paid in cryptocurrency for “likes” and comments.
As the big dogs shoot themselves in the foot, a revolution in social media is happening on platforms like DTube and Steemit. The dinosaur social media platforms are losing their relevance as we expose their censorship and subservience to special interests like the advertisers who have access to all your personal data. If you truly want to be a part of the next step, we invite you to join Steemit today. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
The video is so damning to the deep state establishment’s role in installing neo-nazis in Ukraine that it was blackballed for distribution. Now you can see why that is.
A full original English version of controversial director and documentary filmmaker Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” has finally been made available in the United States — after being blackballed for distribution in the US and Europe when released in 2016.
The film openly explores Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan, and in the process, uncovers some damning truths about the forces that propped up, and participated in, what eventually became a violent coup d’état that overthrew pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
What appeared on western corporate media to be a popular uprising, was, in fact, nothing more than a well-scripted coup attempt meant to install a pro-Western government in Ukraine.
The Euromaidan was used by the West as an opportunity to pull Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence and into a pro-Western economic and security paradigm under the guise of supporting democratic freedom and fighting corruption. This resulted in an internal conflict of identities within Ukrainian society.
Over the course of the three months that the protests took place, conflict solidarity was seen rising on both sides, as well as clear indications of mobilization by both groups, with sporadic episodes of violence and occupation. After months of Independence Square being occupied by protestors, the tragic events of February 20, 2014, which left over 70 dead, drastically changed the trajectory of the conflict and served as a conflict trigger event that would begin a multilevel action, with the massacre eventually leading to the deposing of the Yanukovych government.
While there is almost wholesale acceptance amongst the Western academics, media, and governments, that the mass killing of protestors was undertaken by Berkut special police and government snipers, due to this narrative’s promotion by the post-Yanukovych government, the evidence underpinning these conclusions is scant at best.
A detailed academic investigation by Ivan Katchanovski revealed that these events were actually a false flag operation, which was planned and operationalized with the intent of overthrowing the Yanukovych government by an alliance of ultra-nationalist organizations, such as Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, specifically Fatherland.
Additional evidence indicates that the U.S. was already actively planning the creation of a new Ukrainian government as evidenced by the leaked audio of a conversation between Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
After Yanukovych was deposed, the eastern regions of Ukraine, with large Russian speaking populations, refused to recognize this illegitimate government and requested federalization as to maintain a semblance of autonomy from the pro-Western regime that took power.
However, the new pro-West government refused and instead sent in military forces and neo-Nazi militias to occupy the region. This precipitated local resistance and Russian assistance to the local Ukrainian forces fighting to defend their home from the newly installed regime in Kiev.
In 2014 and 2015, when Ukrainian soldiers and pro-government neo-Nazi battalions were engaging Ukrainian separatists in fierce door-to-door, house-to-house fighting, Russia didn’t back down – instead, they escalated and forcefully stepped up support – as they supplied not only personnel, but tanks, supplies, and reinforcements to stop Kiev’s advances.
While these moves were framed as “Russian aggression” in the western corporate media, Russia was simply working to protect a large Russian speaking population in eastern Ukraine, that largely supported the Yushchenko government that had been the subject of a covert regime change operation.
Stone’s film was originally released in 2016, but unsurprisingly, he was unable to find any Western distribution – although a Russian dubbed version was available almost immediately and was aired on TV in Russia.
Indicative of the preferred method of keeping Americans subservient, English speaking audiences were simply denied access to the film altogether.
According to Pulitzer prize winner Glenn Greenwald, the Israeli government — in partnership with Facebook — have begun aggressively targeting Palestinian voices on social media for censorship;
“The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country… Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists…”
This isn’t much of a surprise though, considering the Times of Israel reported in early January of 2016 that the government’s military censor had been trying to control much of what could and could not be posted on Facebook.
Interestingly (or unsurprisingly), the Intercept claims Israeli calls for Palestinian bloodshed remain largely untouched by way of comparison.
Israeli leadership say they’re only targeting social media accounts that inspire “incitement” against their country and people, but critics — including myself — believe this is simply an indirect form of censorship, considering that they have a very well documented history of aggressively targeting and silencing media correspondents.
In fact, journalists frequently engage in self censorship to avoid the Israeli government’s reproach. I don’t blame them for this chosen course of action either, since Israeli forces have (successfully) targeted media personnel for assassination in the past, by simply using the excuse that they were affiliated with terrorists. Human Rights Watch has accused the regime of “war crimes” because of this.
They also recently arrested a woman for simply filming a live recording on Facebook, of an incident between her daughter and the military, claiming she was engaging in “incitement“. Israeli officials are quick to go after anything that even vaguely resembles resistance to their illegal occupations and colonization of Palestine.
It should also be mentioned that Israeli authorities passed a law to censor websites engaged in “promoting criminal or terror activity” — another vague generalization, ambiguous enough to justify shutting down any pro Palestinian website or group that rejects Israeli foreign occupation.
Facebook also recently deleted the Facebook and Instagram accounts of the head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov, simply because the U.S. government decided to place him on a list of people that should be sanctioned.
Now, don’t get me wrong, to the best of my limited knowledge this guy is a very bad person, but just because the U.S. government says someone should be sanctioned does not justify censoring them, for the obvious fact that the U.S. government has a long history of deception and corruption — as well as supporting dictators, drug lords and even terrorists — and thus simply cannot be relied upon to be the arbiter of Truth.
Germany’s government has taken even greater repressive steps towards imposing censorship; On January 1st The German Network Enforcement Law (NetzDG) was passed, which allows the authorities to censor any website they claim is involved in the spread of “hate speech,” or “fake news“. Social media outlets that do not obey the government’s demands, to have content removed within 24 hours (7 days for more “complex cases“), will be fined up to to €50 million (roughly $58 million).
According to the Guardian, far right wing deputy leader Beatrix von Storch had her Facebook account suspended as a result of this law, and is currently facing potential criminal prosecution because of her behavior.
The staunch nationalist politician was quoted as accusing the Cologne police department of appeasing “barbaric, gang-raping Muslim hordes of men” when they tweeted an Arabic Happy News Years message (they did the same in French, German, and English). Twitter temporarily banned her account as well for this.
Do I agree with her opinion or method of expressing it, no I most certainly do not. But this is a slippery slope that leads to irrational censorship, because emotions and feelings are starting to override logic and reason. When someone insults me online I debate with them, and rebuke them logically and intelligently. If they persist and are clearly irrational trolls I simply block them, just as everyone online can do when they are confronted with an unpleasant human being. It’s really not rocket science.
This censorship started long before this law even came into effect though. According to the New York Times, 36 homes were raided by German police for “hateful postings over social media” last year. And according to a posting made by Facebook’s European Vice President for Public Policy back on June 19, 2017, “In the last two months, we’ve deleted an average of 3,500 posts per week, which were reported as hate speech in Germany. This means we delete around 15,000 posts a month for hate speech in Germany.” A few months after this, “tens of thousands of fake profiles” were allegedly deleted by Facebook during the German election. How many of these were actually fake we most likely will never know, since Facebook’s customer service is shockingly awful and people tend not to pursue these things as a result.
French president Emmanuel Macron has just announced similar proposals to allegedly ban fake news. Like the German government, they intend to block any website they find fault with. In response to these overreaching intentions, French Twitter users have been spreading the hashtag #InventeDesFakeNews (or InventYourFakeNews).
Facebook’s willingness to compromise on freedom of speech, and their moral integrity, shouldn’t come as much of a surprise either. Back in 2016, several former employees told Gizmodo that they routinely manipulated people’s newsfeeds, and the world’s most popular social media platform was also caught conducting psychological experiments on their users back in 2014. Relevant to this blog in particular, the company has also made headlines on numerous occasions for engaging in censorship. Likewise, Twitter has also engaged in censorship on a number of occasions, including censoring the hashtags #PodestaEmails and #DNCLeak during the U.S. elections. Strangely, this censorship has hardly been addressed by the establishment media.
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING Throughout history there has been an information war between the ruling class and the common people. The so called elite know that without us believing in their imaginary authority, they would never be able to rule over us, wage major wars, or turn us into worker ants for their unscrupulous system.
Since the internet’s introduction there has been a change in the world unlike any before. Activists, revolutionaries, and concerned citizens alike, are all now able to communicate in an unprecedented way. You see, the ruling class’s power historically, has firmly been rooted in our ignorance and inability to effectively communicate and organize rebellion. Naturally, as our access to information and social media have accelerated, so too has our ability to intelligently rebel.
The ruling class are well aware of this dangerous unfolding, and although it has taken them rather long to respond to this mass awakening (showing that they underestimate our power in my opinion), they are now taking more assertive steps to control our ability to access important information. Consequently, we can expect this censorship to only get worse, and it will be done under the guise of “preserving democracy,” or some other bullshit excuse that the unwitting and naive will cheer with ignorant fervor.
It should also be mentioned that although I have been highlighting tech giant abuses in this blog, I largely believe that Mark Zuckerberg and other social media bosses have very limited control over what they can and cannot actually do with their own companies, so placing all the blame on them would be wrong. I believe this is due to an antiquated power structure that has been in place for much longer than any of these companies have even been around, as vaguely mentioned by Facebook’s former executive Chamath PaliHapitiya. This system is much bigger than any one man, or one company, and is going to take a collective effort from a significant percentage of the world’s population to overcome.
GOOGLE IS HIRING 10,000 ADDITIONAL HUMAN CENSORS Google announced last month that it will be hiring an additional 10,000 human censors to police “problematic content” online. While this will most certainly be done under the auspices of fighting terrorism, hate speech, and the usual stories — and in many instances I presume they will — I know from first hand experience it will also be used as a tool of indirect censorship.
Amongst the many annoyances I have personally dealt with pertaining to online activism, I’ve also had my YouTube account shut down, and banned, with no proper clarification as to why except a broad set of ambiguous community guidelines which I allegedly violated.
Last year Google claimed it would fight “fake news,” but was caught instead censoring legitimate websites like CounterPunch, World Socialist Website, Democracy Now, American Civil liberties Union, and Wikileaks, amongst others. Certainly not the type of behavior one would expect from an organization with the ironic motto, “Do the right thing” (previously “Don’t be evil”).
Furthermore, as I documented in a previous blog, there are numerous verifiable instances of the establishment media spreading lies, inciting war (large scale terrorism), and deceiving the public, yet they aren’t being held to the same standard as smaller alternative media outlets, who are being censored for doing the same thing on a much smaller scale.
This is shamefully biased and wrong, if we are to earnestly purge deception from news media, it should be done indiscriminately and with objective concern for the Truth.
CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET IS ULTIMATELY CENSORSHIP OF KNOWLEDGE & TRUTH The internet does not merely represent technological achievement, it mostly represents the knowledge and ideas of millions and millions — and even billions — of people who dedicated their lives before us to fighting for a better world. And although these great thinkers and minds may no longer be with us, their thoughts, ideas, and teachings live on through the internet.
These teachings are then discovered by other people like us, who are lucky enough to have access to something as remarkable as the world wide web. We then learn from them and then expand upon them. We see the world around us, and try to figure out how we can create a better world by applying many of these teachings, and where possible we expand upon them through social media and other available platforms.
Being able to communicate and share our thoughts and ideas freely, is the key to furthering this great mission and progress, because mankind as is; dominated by war, racism, tribalism, elitism, poverty, inequality, injustice, and corruption, has yet to actually reach a state of authentic civilization — It is a great duty which we all share to help realize a decent world.
But when a group of powerful governments and elitist interests — that have ultimately profited from keeping us ignorant throughout history — start telling us that they are going to censor our thoughts, ideas, and regulate our ability to communicate under the cloak of benevolence, it means they are ultimately going to hide important knowledge from us; because all expression online — even the most irrational and idiotic — represent some form of knowledge, even if it is just the knowledge of what the most extreme elements of society are thinking.
Why should it be up to the ruling class to decide what knowledge is good, and what is bad? Do not all of us possess the ability to think for ourselves? Do not all have us have the ability to block or ban someone that is acting like a fool online? So how can we rely on the very elitist class that has benefited from our ignorance throughout known history to be in charge of the regulation of knowledge and information?? The answer to that last question is very simple, we cannot, and we would be very stupid to think that we can.
At the end (or beginning depending on your perspective) of our journey towards creating a better world, is the realization that we are actually the ones with the power not them. Their only real power resides in controlling our minds and what we believe. Without this, they literally have nothing. They become insane people running around making ridiculous demands and establishing rules using their imaginary authority — a course of action that would generally land someone in a mental institution, which is exactly where the overwhelming majority of them belong.
We must adjust intelligently to the changing of these times, and raise our standards accordingly my friends. Be precise when sharing information, fact check, and where ever possible, provide overwhelming evidence to prove your point. The censors are looking for reasons to take us down, so we must become more intelligent in our delivery.
Our ignorance has always been their power, but our disillusionment, and subsequent awakening — which is happening right now — will ultimately be their demise. I am not calling for a violent revolution, I am calling for a revolution of the mind.
We are many, and they are few. We just have to wake up and their bullshit game is over.
Social media has changed tremendously within the past few years. Not only have social networks been used to “connect” the world in several different ways, they’ve also come at a tremendous cost, as discussed in the video below which was recently released by Anonymous.
The video features several snippets from two former major Facebook executives, Chamath Palihapitiya and Sean Parker.
In it, they discuss the real implications of Facebook that are probably unbelievable to some people. These are the, as I like to call, “little big things” that we’re not really aware of, and when presented with this type of information, it’s common for one to roll their eyes because sometimes it’s so out of left field.
Why? I’m not sure, what they say makes perfect sense and given who these people are and where they’ve worked, they obviously know a thing or two about the platform
Another strong point here is that sentiment like this doesn’t receive much attention from mainstream media, which is another indicator of why one should be looking into it.
What is social media today? It’s created an environment where some, not all, are starving for likes and attention. We constantly share parts of our lives with others, so we ourselves can be seen. It’s a total ego trip for the most part, but others do use it for genuine purposes other than attention grabbing.
At the same time, social media became a great platform to share information that’s not presented in the mainstream. Whether it be important scientific papers that’ve been published on GMOs or vaccines, social media has brought light into several worlds of darkness.
Information started going super viral, and it wasn’t uncommon for popular alternative independent media outlets to see a couple million people on their site by mid-afternoon.
Sharing of classified documents, government corruption, and creating awareness on technologies, ideas and innovation were at the forefront of independent media. More people were becoming aware of false flag terrorism. There are important publications out there that would never have seen the light of day if it wasn’t for social media, like the multiple studies that’ve been published in major science and engineering studies that conclude, without a doubt, that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
Facebook has admitted to deleting the accounts of Palestinian activists and journalists at the behest of the Israeli government as well as the accounts used by the former leader of Chechnya at the command of Washington in an active campaign of international political censorship.
The social media company, which has more than 2 billion active users worldwide, has also been systematically removing hate speech and other “illegal” content from its platform in Germany.
Facebook, which has nearly 4 million active users in Israel, has been engaged in a “censorship rampage” against activists and journalists who oppose the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory according to the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald.
The current campaign of censorship against Palestinians began after high-level meetings in September 2016 between Facebook representatives and Israeli officials including Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked of the far-right, pro-settlement Jewish Home party. Shaked once notoriously referred to Palestinian children as “little snakes.”
After the meetings with Facebook, Shaked publicly bragged that the company had granted 95 percent of more than 150 requests by Tel Aviv for removal of content during a four-month period that the Israeli government declared “incitement.”
Following the Israel-Facebook summit, ten administrators for the Arabic- and English-language Facebook pages for the Palestinian Information Center, with more than two million followers, had their accounts suspended, seven permanently. Facebook also briefly took down the page run by Fatah, the largest faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, when it posted a picture of Yasser Arafat holding a rifle.
Most recently the former head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, had both his Facebook and Instagram accounts deleted at the behest of the US last month. According to Facebook, it had deleted the two accounts, which had approximately 4 million followers, after the Trump administration had placed Kadyrov on a financial sanctions list.
The move against Kadyrov sets the precedent that allows the US government to silence the social media accounts of any foreign politician or official who may voice opposition to US interests by placing them on a sanctions list.
Along the same lines as the US and Israeli government’s censorship campaigns, the German government adopted a new law in October that bans “hate speech” and other “illegal” content on social media outlets by threatening the companies with a possible $56 million fine if they do not quickly remove offending posts.
Coinciding with the new law, Facebook opened a “deletion center” in Essen, Germany employing 500 censors to sort through posts and delete comments, videos and photos that violate the company’s rules. The first such deletion center in Germany was opened in Berlin and now employs 700 people.
Richard Allan, Facebook’s European Vice President for Public Policy, reported last year that 15,000 posts had been deleted in a single month for violating Germany’s hate speech laws.
In what was reported to be the first use of the new social media hate speech ban, Beatrix von Storch, the deputy parliamentary leader for the right-wing extremists Alternative for Germany, had her Twitter and Facebook pages blocked after she posted a racist comment disparaging Muslim man. The offending post was promptly deleted by the social media companies’ censors.
While Facebook’s campaign is justified publicly by targeting right-wing extremists and autocrats, the real aim is to use these powers against anyone who is branded an “extremist,” in particular political opponents of the financial oligarchy. Facebook’s censorship campaign, carried out in coordination with Western governments, is of a piece with Google’s efforts to block access to left-wing and antiwar web sites by demoting their pages in search results, resulting in traffic drops by as much as 75 percent.
Every inch of creativity and thought forward that does not support the existing lame and fake political and social platform is deliberately being decimated bit by bit until we are so’ dumbmified’ we just stop fighting.
Example: WordPress was, is, the best word processor ever and it was free. Now, it will cost you a few dollars per month to have a blog. Think about this for a second. We will be charged for creating and thinking. I hate crap capitalism.
The dude who started WP as a “Free source software” is now a billionaire. So why does he allow this to happen? This was not his dream. He was eaten alive and given wealth in exchange for his compliance?
Example: Many videos on YouTube have been censored and deleted. Many others you cannot embed on a post because they are controversial or the original owners smell a buck. It’s come down to his pathetic level of pettiness where people are fighting over pennies.
So far so good, say the ruling Masters of the Universe in this particular matrix.
No wonder I love the idea of karma. You kind of have to think in eons of time. Evolution is another dimension altogether.
And these little pathetic amoebas who don’t understand we are all in this together will be excluded from the future genetic gene pool. For the price of fame, a few coins, and a pic on Facebook?
Eternity is a bitch.
I am, simply speaking, shattered:
While we are here, under our thumb every evil corporation, meaning a bunch of self-deluded humanoids, that think they can control us without impunity. Remember what happens to Those who don’t remember history mofos.