To read Facebook’s Community Standards policy, as mentioned in this video go to Facebook’s Community Standard’s Page
In her new book Shoshana Zuboff, Professor at Harvard Business School, outlines the goals of the tech giants like Google and Facebook. Zuboff argues that their “goal is to automate us” by trading in our personal experiences as their raw material. She says we are now in an age of surveillance capitalism.
In an interview with Democracy Now Zuboff explains what this means:
Read More: The Guardian
Sen Hawley has proposed a bill that would force tech companies like Facebook and Twitter to prove they are politically neutral. Conservatives have been seeking ways to stop these tech giants controlling the political narrative and promoting their own agenda.
“Social media companies that have routinely deplatformed conservatives and censored conservative speech should no longer enjoy the protections granted to politically neutral platforms,” Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, said in a statement Wednesday, referring to Section 230. “These tech companies claim they have no ideological bias — it is time they prove it.”
However, some conservatives think Sen. Hawley’s bill could have the opposite affect. They fear that the legislation would cause tech companies to remove political content that they fear would spark controversy, and thus further shut down the conservative voice.
“If social media firms are worried about being liable for user-generated content, they’re likely to be more aggressive in taking down any vaguely political content, out of fear that it could put them in legal jeopardy,” Philip Klein, a writer at the Washington Examiner.
Read More: The Daily Caller
Nick Conrad, a French rapper, who has previously been found guilty for incitement of violence, has again released a controversial new single. In his latest music video he is seen murdering a white woman, wearing Christian jewellery, the woman is symbolic of France, whilst singing, “I F*** France, I Burn France.”
In previous songs he has had lyrics like: “I enter day care centres and kill white babies. Catch them quickly and hang their parents. Spread them apart to pass the time, to entertain black children of all ages young and old”
Neither Facebook or Instagram have taken action to remove Conrad’s content from their sites, despite removing right leaning voices like Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, and Milo Yiannopoulos, for far less violent and offensive content.
Read More: Breibart
There is no such thing as Pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Voters expect CNN and others to tilt American elections. What’s new is that social media and even video games are getting in on the act.
My dad always told me that conservative candidates have to work twice as hard as their liberal opponents to win elections because they’re fighting two opponents: the Democratic Party and the media.
The usual suspects from left-leaning major media outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and even entertainment networks are doing everything in their power to ensure a Clinton victory. Look no further than to Wolf Blitzer mincing around and drinking wine at the Democratic convention, celebrating Hillary’s nomination. But the propaganda skewing this election runs much deeper than just the media: our iPhones, iPads, social media networks, Google and even video games are all in the tank for Hillary Clinton—and it’s chilling.
I began looking into how strong the bias and censorship runs in these forums after I did an interview on the pro-Trump podcast, MAGA. The show’s host, Mark Hammond, was disappointed Apple wouldn’t run his show without an “explicit” warning. Hammond’s podcast didn’t contain content that would be deemed explicit under Apple’s policy, and most other shows in the News & Politics category aren’t labeled as such.
On June 18, Hammond talked to Sandra, a representative from Apple. She explained that, since the description of his show is pro-Trump, his show is explicit in nature—because the subject matter is Donald Trump. So, an Apple employee concluded the Republican presidential candidate is explicit.
iTunes has dozens of podcasts discussing Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler—none of which is marked explicit. I encouraged Hammond to contact Apple again, via email to their podcast support team. Within 48 hours he received a response from “Tim,” who informed Hammond that his podcast would be updated to “clean” within 24 hours.
Further digging on Apple revealed more evidence that the computer giant is feeding users pro-Hillary and anti-Trump propaganda.
Over the past year, Apple twice refused to publish a satirical Clinton Emailgate game, “Capitol HillAwry,” claiming it was “offensive” and “mean spirited” even though the game’s developer, John Matze, cited in communications with Apple that the game fits the standards of Apple’s own satire policy. Apple has, however, approved dozens of games poking fun at Donald Trump—including a game called “Dump Trump,” which depicts the GOP nominee as a giant turd.
On July 25, Breitbart exposed this blatant double standard and favoritism toward Clinton. A few days after the article was released, Apple caved and published Capitol HillAwry, 15 months after Matze’s first attempt to go live.
While it’s commendable that Apple resolved both situations, Trump supporters and conservative users should never have faced such biased treatment in the first place.
Around the same time I was a guest on MAGA, a friend complained to me about how biased his Apple News feed is against Trump. I set up an Apple News account on my iPhone.
First step: select an outlet. Fox News. Conservative. But my news feed? Liberal.
And if there are articles above the fold from more right-leaning sites? They paint Trump in a negative light and Hillary in a positive light. Of all the channels listed in the Apple News politics section, only two of the 16 arguably lean right—the rest are reliably left-wing.
This has, of course, been pointed out before, and anyone with an iPhone or iPad can go to Apple News to determine on his or her own if Apple is pushing leftist propaganda. Apple claims not to endorse candidates, but their actions suggest otherwise, and some of their executives—including CEO Tim Cook—actively support Clinton’s campaign. Buzzfeed recently obtained an invitation to a private $50,000-per-plate fundraiser Cook is hosting for Clinton with his Apple colleague, Lisa Jackson, at the end of this month.
Apple isn’t the only corporation doing Clinton’s bidding. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is “directly engaged” in her campaign. It’s been widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.” He also pointed out that many members of Clinton’s staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.
So it should come as no surprise that there have been multiple reports accusing Google of manipulating searches to bury negative stories about Clinton. SourceFed details how Google alters its auto-complete functions to paint Clinton in a positive light.
For example, when you type “Hillary Clinton cri” into other engines like Yahoo! or Bing, the most popular autofills are “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” but in Google it’s “Hillary Clinton crime reform.” Google denies they changed their algorithm to help Clinton, and insists the company does not favor any candidate. They also claim their algorithms don’t show predicted queries that are offensive or disparaging.
But Google has gotten into hot water on multiple occasions for connecting Trump to Adolf Hitler. In June, when users searched “when Hitler was born” it generated the expected information on Hitler but also an image of Trump. In July, searches for Trump’s book, Crippled America, returned images of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kempf. Google has since fixed both—but again, why do these issues always conveniently disparage Trump and help Clinton?
Twitter is another culprit. The company has gotten a lot of slack for banning conservatives and Trump supporters such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos and, most recently, rapper Azealia Banks after she came out in support of Trump. Twitter has provided vague answers as to why conservative voices have been banned while they’ve allowed other users to call for the killing of cops.
Just yesterday, Buzzfeed revealed that the social media giant’s top executive personally protected the President from seeing critical messages last year. “In 2015, then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama.”
This year, Twitter isn’t just banning conservatives—the platform also changed its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.
The founders of some of the most popular pro-Trump Twitter handles—including @USAforTrump2016 and @WeNeedTrump—insist Twitter is censoring their content. They’ve pointed out that Twitter changes trending hashtags associated with negative tweets about Clinton (which has been reported before). On August 4, shortly after the hashtag “HillaryAccomplishment” began trending, it was taken over by anti-Clinton users, who used it to mention Benghazi or Emailgate. Eric Spracklen, @USAforTrump2016 founder, noticed the hashtag was quickly changed—pluralized to #HillarysAccomplishments.
“They take away the hashtag that has negative tweets for Clinton and replace it with something that doesn’t so the average person doesn’t see what was really trending,” Spracklen said. “This happens every day.”
Jack Murphy, founder of @WeNeedTrump, says followers complain they often aren’t able to retweet his pro-Trump tweets.
Instagram has also banned accounts that depict Clinton in a negative light. In June, a conservative comedy group called Toughen Up America was banned with no warning or explanation. Last week, the popular Australian-based graffiti artist, Lushsux, was banned from Instagram after he posted photos of a bikini-clad Clinton mural he painted.
“I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat, but the timing of the Hillary Clinton mural posting and the deletion that ensued can’t just be a coincidence,” he told the Daily Mail Australia. Lushsux has posted photos of way more graphic murals, including a topless Melania Trump and a naked Donald with his package in full sight. These images did not trigger any censorship from Instagram.
Facebook has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices like Black Lives Matter activists. The problem became so transparent that Sen. John Thune sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking him to explain their practices.
Facebook denies it discriminates against “any sources of ideological origin” and Zuckerberg did meet with conservatives in an attempt to resolve this issue. While some walked away from the meeting encouraged that Zuckerberg wants to repair their relationship, other prominent conservatives rejected the invitation as a publicity stunt. It should be noted that Facebook employees have donated more to Clinton than to any other candidate.
Many conservatives have come to expect this kind of thing from the mainstream media. CNN, which paints itself as the centrist antidote to right-leaning Fox News and left-leaning MSNBC, has actually been among the most disingenuous offenders during this cycle, fully earning its derisive nickname “Clinton News Network.” For example, as NewsBusters pointed out for just one day, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday’s New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn’t think much of the Wall Street Journal‘s revelation that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn’t mention that the payment was sent on “an unmarked cargo plane.” New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”
Another favored CNN trick is to present a “balanced” panel comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats and a host, as they did on the afternoon of July 29, just to name one instance of a hundred. However, the Republican side always features one Trump supporter and one “Never Trump” Republican, with the host grilling the Trump Supporter—often a beleaguered Jeffrey Lord—in what amounts to a 4-on-1. So much for balance.
Right now, CNN has a story on its site called “Which Republicans oppose Trump and why?” There’s no corresponding story about Democrats who oppose Clinton, even though her underdog challenger in the primary lasted far longer and received far more votes than any of Trump’s Republican challengers.
No Republican willing to criticize Trump is too insignificant to merit coverage on CNN. When a minor Christie staffer announced on her personal Facebook that she’d be backing Hillary, she somehow merited a 1200 word story on CNN’s website and euphoric coverage on the air by Brooke Baldwin for “splitting with her party.”
So that’s the traditional media. But this new strand, where one cannot even search for alternative viewpoints amid technology companies who stand to benefit from the free-trade policies and eased immigration regulations of a Clinton presidence, represents a dangerous sea change. There’s absolutely no question the digital forums we use every day are censoring conservatives and favoring Clinton. You can’t simply scroll through photos on Instagram, look for a video game in the App Store or do a quick Google search without being fed anti-Trump and pro-Clinton propaganda.
These companies are engaging in activity that can quickly lead down a very dangerous slippery slope and this should concern all freedom-loving Americans—not just conservatives. If you don’t know when the election is, no problem! Just Google it and see for yourself what comes up…
Google, before adjustments were made to the ‘when is the election’ search. (Screenshot: Google)
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.
Liz Crokin is an award-winning author, journalist, political pundit and an advocate for sex crime victims. Her work has appeared in the RedEye Edition of the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times: Splash, Townhall, Elite Daily, Marie Claire and Us Weekly. Follower her on Twitter and Instagram @LizCrokin.
It has now emerged the government has been mining data from the internet as well as phone data from Verizon. Leaked documents appear to show that a government spying program, called Prism, has been in place for years. Prism has allegedly allowed access to the the US and UK security services to the servers of the biggest internet companies: Google, Apple, Skype, Microsoft, YouTube, and Facebook.
However the internet companies in question have denied the claims. Google has issued a statement, “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government – or any other government – direct access to our servers.
“Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centres. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.
“Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.
“We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process.
“Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period.”
Facebook and Apple have also denied knowledge of the Prism program.
Read More: The Telegraph
Microsoft have just filed for a patent that could potentially turn their best selling X-Box accessory, Kinect, into Big Brother. Microsoft have developed software that can detect the number of people in the room partaking of the game or movie. If the number exceeds that allowed by the license, then your x-box reports you to Microsoft and action taken. To quote Microsoft, “The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.”
Apple also filed for a patent in September for “Apparatus and methods for enforcement of policies upon a wireless device”. This means they would be able to remotely disable mobiles or tablets over a particular area.
Also Google have a number of patents in the area of facial recognition. Eric Schmidt has publicly admitted the company has held back from applying some of their technology, as it “crosses the line of creepy”.
As we share more and more of our personal information online, and as we become more comfortable with the types of surveillance that are common, is it only a matter of time before we begin to accept these technologies as part of every day life? We are already comfortable with Google, Facebook, Twitter etc., compiling huge files of information about our lives – at which point do we say enough? And do we want governments having control of these types of technology?
Facebook censors Navy SEALs who said Obama denied them backup as forces overran Benghazi and killed U.S. Ambassador Message was taken down by Facebook TWICE -SEALS claim it was attempt to quietly squelch opposition to President Obamas alleged failures
A message posted on Facebook by Navy SEALS claiming that President Obama denied them backup as forces overran Benghazi was taken down twice by the social networking site. The move has stoked accusations that Facebook was censoring the SEALs’ message to ‘quietly squelch opposition’ to President Obama’s alleged failures.The message contained in a meme suggesting that Obama relied on the SEALS when he wanted to get Osama bin Laden, but then turned round and denied them back up when they called for it in Benghazi. Censored? The SOS post was taken down by Facebook twice… but not before it had been shared online by thousands.
US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American embassy staff were killed in the attack by Islamist militants in Benghazi, Libya on September 11. The tragedy has become a controversial issue in next months presidential election due to ongoing confusion over how much the administration knew about the circumstances of the attack.
More…Revealed: Googles biggest advertiser is the University of Phoenix spending nearly $200,000 every dayObama’s bad timing: President jokes about the songs on his iPod in pre-taped interview that airs as Superstorm Sandy batters East Coast
So, just how much money did YouTube make from streaming Gangnam Style?Sources present during the deadly six-hour assault have said that a desperate last request for military assistance once the CIA themselves came under attack was denied, even though elite counter-terrorism units were only two hours away.
The Facebook message about the attack was posted by Special Operations Speaks PAC SOS, an organisation founded by Special Operations veterans dedicated to protecting forces at home and abroad.
Attack: The US Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during fierce clashes in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens diedThe image was shared on Facebook between 30,000 users within 24 hours of it being posted online.However it was taken down at the weekend for what SOS claims was an ‘unspecified violation of Facebook’s terms of Rights and Responsibilities.’Retired SEAL Captain Larry Bailey said: ‘It looks like Obama’s liberal followers in Facebook HQ are terrified of how damaging the Benghazi scandal is for the President. We understand that Facebook can run their site however they’d like, but when they’re trying to quietly squelch opposition to what is a clear leadership failure that resulted in the tragic deaths of some of our nation’s heroes, they deserve the to be called out on it.’Tragedy: Walls at the main entrance of the US consulate in Benghazi, apparently stained with blood.
Colonel Dick Brauer Jr, retired from the US Air Force, added: ‘Americans across the country deserve the truth about what happened in Libya, and they certainly deserve to know when people who hold the keys to a lot of their online communications are trying to keep that from them.’After the post was removed twice and SOS’s Facebook account suspended for 24 hours, the post was reinstated and SOS received an email from Facebook apologising. It said: ‘A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook. This was mistake, and we sincerely apologize for this error. Weve since restored the content, and you should now be able to see it.’SOS responded to the apology: ‘We accept their apology but do not accept that it was an innocent mistake. It was clearly a means to protect Obama on Libya.’A spokesperson from Facebook said: This was an error and we apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused. They can feel free to repost the image.
Chick-fil-A… “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit,” and “…treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”
Reaction by some has been swift and furious.
Roseanne Barr released a mostly unprintable tweet saying in part, that people who eat “antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ… deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come.”
Proco “Joe” Morena, a Chicago City Alderman states that he will block any attempt by the chain from opening in his district stating that Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy is “guilty as charged… If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward.” and that Cathy’s comments were “bigoted, homophobic.”
Rahm Emmanuel followed similarly with “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino also does not want a Chick-fil-A in his city.
Jim Henson Co. the Muppets creator, has broken out of a partnership with Chick-fil-A.
A new lobbying group is being formed according to the Washington Post today.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay will make up the group which will be called The Internet Association and as stated by them, will be “the unified voice of the Internet economy, representing the interests of Americas leading Internet companies and their global community of users.”
It will be led by Michael Beckerman who is the former deputy staff director of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and former advisor to United States Representative, Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican.
To mark gay pride week, the food company Kraft made a rainbow colored Oreo cookie, which they posted on their Facebook page.
Although most of the 20,000 comments on the post were positive some were negative, with customers pledging never to buy the product again. Others questioned why a cookie company was championing gay rights.
The negative comments have sparked a debate about “homophobia” on the internet.
This was followed by the negative tweets and comments hip hop star Frank Ocean attracted, after revealing his sexuality in his blog.
With the homosexual community citing these as examples of proof that the web is homophobic, has the web not done more to promote LGBT liberation than any other medium?
Are we now going to see the powerful LGBT lobbying groups push to censor the web?
We have already seen Google launch a campaign to promote gay rights across the globe.
Where could this end?
On Monday the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) levied the largest fine to date on Google for a privacy violation. The slap was worth $22.5 million.
Google had been attempting to work around Apple’s Safari on its mobile devices. They were watching mobile users’ browsing habits, even if those same users had believed they had blocked that access.
This move suggests Facebook are seeking to further develop their facial recognition technology. With the vast amounts of personal data Facebook holds on it’s users, and the millions of photographs stored on their servers of users, and users families and friends; should we be concerned at Facebook further pursuing the capabilities of complying databases which would enable them to recognise you whenever, and wherever they see your image? Should we be concerned as to the security of such data?
For more information: CNET