Fascism 2.0 – The Changing Face Of Social-Media Censorship

 Facebook make only about £34 a year from the average customer in the UK – a little under £3 a month (and that’s before costs), so clearly there is no head-room or motivation, for a human level of customer service or attention. The user is not the customer; rather, they are the product whose data is sold to advertisers.

Thus, users do not have a direct customer relationship with the platform. The network is not directly incentivised to “care” about the user before the advertiser. And no matter where you lie on the spectrum between “free speech absolutism” and “private entities have the right to censor any user”, with such low margins it is inevitable machine processing will have to be used to moderate posts and deal with the customer interface.

But it is a fact the customer processing and management capabilities Social Networks are now evolving is being utilised in a variety of ways beyond just moderation. And it is also true this automated processing is being done at scale and is now applied to every post every member makes. 68% of US voters are on Facebook. In the UK it’s 66% and France 73.2%. The figures are similar for every democratic nation in the West. So it is vitally important the applied rules should be politically neutral.


The power that exists within the ability to machine-process every users posts is far deeper and more profound than perhaps many realise. And while it can’t directly dictate what users write in their messages it has the capacity to fundamentally shape which messages gain traction.

Social Media services have become de-facto town squares and most would agree their corporate owners should avoid ever putting a hand on the scales and influencing politics.

Additionally as everyone who uses Facebook is aware, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics, the system will qualify an individual’s reach; sometimes to an extreme degree. Or that user will simply be banned for a period of time, or banned from the network entirely.

So we can ask the question, since the social media corporations have so much censorship power, how do we know they aren’t engaging in unethical political interference? Can they be trusted with the responsibility?

I will return to this question, but it’s clear that trust in these corporations is deeply misplaced.

The pandemic woke many people up to the levels of control those in charge of our Social Media networks are imposing. They, write the rules to boost engagement for posts they favour, making certain individuals’ follower counts more valuable. Conversely, users who go against the grain (or against the establishment narrative) see their engagement subtly reduced or even tank, or they can be banned from the service entirely. And the evidence is that, somewhat contrary to the principles of democracy, hands have been very firmly placed on the scales at Facebook, Twitter and YouTube....<<<Read More>>>...

Military Origins: Pentagon Shut Down LifeLog Project the Same Day Facebook Was Created

[Humans Are Free]: Facebook’s growing role in the ever-expanding surveillance and “pre-crime” apparatus of the national security state demands new scrutiny of the company’s origins and its products as they relate to a former, controversial DARPA-run surveillance program that was essentially analogous to what is currently the world’s largest social network.

In mid-February, Daniel Baker, a US veteran described by the media as “anti-Trump, anti-government, anti-white supremacists, and anti-police,” was charged by a Florida grand jury with two counts of “transmitting a communication in interstate commerce containing a threat to kidnap or injure.”

The communication in question had been posted by Baker on Facebook, where he had created an event page to organize an armed counter-rally to one planned by Donald Trump supporters at the Florida capital of Tallahassee on January 6. “If you are afraid to die fighting the enemy, then stay in bed and live. Call all of your friends and Rise Up!,” Baker had written on his Facebook event page.

Baker’s case is notable as it is one of the first “precrime” arrests based entirely on social media posts — the logical conclusion of the Trump administration’s, and now Biden administration’s, push to normalize arresting individuals for online posts to prevent violent acts before they can happen.

From the increasing sophistication of US intelligence/military contractor Palantir’s predictive policing programs to the formal announcement of the Justice Department’s Disruption and Early Engagement Program in 2019 to Biden’s first budget, which contains $111 million for pursuing and managing “increasing domestic terrorism caseloads,” the steady advance toward a precrime-centered “war on domestic terror” has been notable under every post-9/11 presidential administration. This new so-called war on domestic terror has actually resulted in many of these types of posts on Facebook. And, while Facebook has long sought to portray itself as a “town square” that allows people from across the world to connect, a deeper look into its apparently military origins and continual military connections reveals that the world’s largest social network was always intended to act as a surveillance tool to identify and target domestic dissent....<<<Read The Full Article Here>>>...

Facebook Implements New Tool to Stop Popular Content from Going Viral

The globalist overlords are in panic mode. Developments like this mean that somewhere in their psychotic ranks there are creatures that are not sleeping very well. 

It's not that they have a conscience about what they are doing. 

No, it's because they know we are close to finding out the truth about their evil little plots.

[Humans Are Free]: To prevent another America’s Frontline Doctors-type video from ever going “viral” again, Facebook is reportedly piloting a new censorship tool called a “virality circuit breaker” that will nip “misinformative” content in the bud before it has the chance to spread.

Promoted by Casey Newton from The Verge, the pilot program builds upon suggestions made by the Center for American Progress (CAP), which put forth a “Fighting Coronavirus Misinformation and Disinformation” report highlighting ways that Facebook and other social media platforms can better censor content that they do not want people to access.

In the “Virality circuit breakers” section of this report, CAP urges platforms like Facebook and Twitter to “detect, label, (and) suspend algorithmic amplification,” as well as “prioritize rapid review and fact-checking of trending coronavirus content that displays reliable misinformation markers.”

These “misinformation markers,” the report further explains, “can be drawn from the existing body of coronavirus mis/disinformation.”

In other words, by spying on and surveilling coronavirus-related content that Big Tech determines to be “fake,” programmers can construct censorship code to sweep other related content off social media platforms to prevent it from spreading.

CAP is also suggesting new “scan-and-suggest” features for Big Tech to implement that would detect “misinformation” in draft postings that have yet to go “live.”

This would prevent content that Big Tech and the globalist overlords want to censor from ever even getting posted in the first place, let alone shared to the point that it goes viral....<<<Read The Full Article Here>>>...

Facebook helps phone companies gather user data, including their 'creditworthiness'

[David Icke]: Facebook has supplied phone companies with customers' private data without their knowledge or consent, and even helped those companies use Facebook behavior to evaluate users' creditworthiness, documents reportedly show.

The social network supplied data on location, interests, and friend groupings to phone carriers and manufacturers without users' permission – data that went far beyond mere technical specs. Users' activity on Facebook, Instagram and even Messenger was fair game for data-mining, and the platform encouraged and even assisted over 100 global telecoms to use customers' data for purposes including evaluating their creditworthiness, according to documents seen by the Intercept, which suggest the program is still going on.

Facebook data scientists working on its "Actionable Insights" program developed an algorithm to exclude customers with poor credit history from future promotions by a client, determining creditworthiness through users' online behavior, according to the document, which presented this case study as an example of what clients could achieve through the program. Such an algorithm, replicated across the platform through a targeting mechanism called "lookalike audiences" that lumps together users who share attributes, could allow Actionable Insights clients to negatively "profile" users, denying them services based on their failure to fulfill metrics they didn't even know existed, based on behavior they didn't know was being subject to surveillance

Actionable Insights was announced in August, at about the same time Facebook's secretive and possibly illegal data-sharing partnerships with other tech companies were being exposed – and while Facebook was insisting such non-consenting data-sharing was wholly in the company's past. Like the "trusted partnerships" program, Actionable Insights is ostensibly free, allowing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to continue to claim that Facebook doesn't "sell users' data" – but access was provided with the understanding that companies would purchase Facebook ads, now expertly targeted thanks to the user data they could access....read more>>>...