I was on Twitter the other day and it kept warming about tweets that they said contained inappropriate data and I had to click on an view button to see it. When I clicked on I expected to see stuff about Russia-gate, or the Skripal hoax, or Assnge, etc, but it was just criticism of the finance sector, something you might read in the Guardian, or the Financial Times, even. It was just under one guy. Maybe he had tweeted something they didn't like and now they were blanking half his posts, I don't know?
Over the weekend, we were surprised to learn that some readers were prevented by Facebook when attempting to share Zero Hedge articles. Subsequently it emerged that virtually every attempt to share or merely mention an article, including in private messages, would be actively blocked by the world's largest social network, with the explanation that "the link you tried to visit goes against our community standards."
11 comments:
Can't be too cautious going into 2020 election though. Above all else, we need to prevent wrong think. Everyone must know which is truth -- which set of policy that British intelligence is dictating the US government and electorate adopt.
There's a lot of Larouche videos and they are quite interesting. I haven't posted any Larouche stuff here because they can be a bit barmy.
They believe the US is run by Britain, where the Queen is the head. So, they still see it as the British Empire.
There's no doubt the British financial sector has a lot of power behind the scenes. I just see it as the Anglo-US Empire, but some say it is the Anglo-US-Zionist Empire.
"which set of policy that Israeli intelligence is dictating the US government"
There, fixed it for you.
It such a relief to know that Israeli intelligence which runs the U.S. government is not revenue constrained and can never run out of "dollars". What could possibly go wrong?
Noah Way:
Thanks for the correction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Censorship is getting worse all the time because average people think like this…
PERSON A: Facebook banned so-and-so.
PERSON B: Those bastards! They’re exploiting their monopoly! Those fu*king---
PERSON A: Calm down. Facebook hasn’t banned us yet.
PERSON B: No? Well, in that case, they can do whatever they want, since they’re a privately owned company.
As for Zero Hedge, we shouldn’t be too surprised. The person who runs it, Bulgarian immigrant Dan Ivandjiiski, is notorious for (sometimes) being truthful and for (sometimes) having anti-establishment views (which the lie-filled establishment calls “conspiracy theories”).
Incidentally the two issues that most concerned Trump’s (former) supporters were immigration and censorship. Trump disappointed his supporters on both topics. Instead of “draining the swamp,” Trump has made it worse than ever.
I will be very surprised if Trump is re-elected in 2020. Get ready for Kamala Harris, who is as neoliberal as they come. Harris has called for Universal Medicare, just like Obama did until he got into the White House, at which point Obama did an about-face. Harris will do the same.
If Obama and Hillary had a child, it would be Harris, who is even more ambitious than was Hillary. Always putting career before family, Harris decide to become the U.S. president four years ago. Therefore at age 50 she married a Jewish person, befriended Sen. Diane Feinstein, and waited for the next election, which came in Nov 2016, at which point Harris became a U.S. Senator. Next stop: the White House. Harris has already been interviewed by the money powers out in the Hamptons, and they selected her, just as they did Obama. All Democrat aspirants are required to go through this.
It seems to me that Facebook and the others are breaching their terms of service. Doing so should expose them to liability in court. I think Congress should make that clear and perhaps Congress should expand a right to sue for damages for victims of censorship that violates those terms of service and allow people to sue in their home jurisdiction as opposed to the home jurisdiction of the tech company.
I checked the Facebook terms of service, and I saw nothing about censorship. In the fine print, Facebook maintains the right to change its mind about user conditions at any time, which means that Zuckerberg can do whatever Zuckerberg wants, whenever he wants. (If you complain about it, you are an “anti-Semite.”)
Jeff Bezos is the richest man in human history, but even he must follow orders. Whenever the Chosen want a book banned, Bezos obeys.
People used to burn books. Now books are simply purged from the Internet.
They maintain the right to CHANGE their terms of service at any time. Except, they haven't changed them, so they are bound by the terms that presently exist.
The terms say nothing about censorship.
Hence there is nothing about censorship to "change."
Hence Facebook should be sued for changing and not changing its terms.
With logic like that, you could be a Nobel Prize-winning economist.
Censorship does not apply to private enterprise.
Duh.
@ Noah Way: Roddis was talking about Facebook's Terms of Service, not the public-private distinction.
Speaking of that, if it could be shown that these big social media platforms get US government funding, then we might have a constitutional case against censorship.
Facebook was initially funded by the US government as a new and improved MySpace. That is, the US government realized that with some tweaks, MySpace would be a fantastic tool for data mining and for tracking peasant opinions. So in 2004 the US government funded Facebook. And the rest, as they say, is shitstory.
Very soon we will have to present a personal ID in order to simply log on to the Internet.
Post a Comment