By Oiwan Lam
Canada-based Internet censorship research organization, Citizen Lab, points out in their latest report, “Censored Contagion: How Information on the Coronavirus is Managed on Chinese Social Media“, that on December 31, 2019, China’s web censors introduced a new list of 45 coronavirus-related keywords to block online discussion about the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. According to the report’s authors, the scope of censorship broadened in February 2020, with the identification of 516 coronavirus-related keyword combinations blocked on the messaging and social media app WeChat between January 1 to February 15.
The research notes that at the initial stage of the outbreak of COVID-19 in China, the censorship curbed alerts to the public on the threat of the then-unknown virus. Later, the censored contents were broadened to include criticisms of top leaders and officials, government policies, speculative stories, any reference to Dr. Li Wenliang, and Chinese netizens’ demands for political change. Prior to being investigated by the police, Dr. Li was among a number of Wuhan-based medical practitioners to first raise the alarm about the new coronavirus. He died as a result of the virus on February 6, sparking online criticism of the Chinese authorities.
Coronavirus-related blocking updated on December 31, 2019
Citizen Lab’s research found that on December 31, 2019, one day after a number of medical workers — including the late Dr. Li — attempted to alert the public to the spread of a new SARS-like virus, the Chinese web censors updated the list of blocked terms on social media.
YY, a Chinese streaming platform, introduced 45 coronavirus-related blocked terms in its mobile application on December 31, 2019. The list included “Wuhan unknown Pneumonia”（武漢不明肺炎), “unknown SARS” (不明沙市), “SARS variation”（沙市變異), “P4 virus research lab”（P4病毒實驗室), “Wuhan fresh food market”（武漢海鮮市場), and “Wuhan censored epidemic outbreak”（武漢封禁疫情).
As social media platforms in China are obliged to follow the instructions of the country’s Propaganda and Cyber-administration Authorities, the finding shows that Beijing was well aware of the outbreak since last December. However, instead of informing the public of the health threat, it banned news of the virus from circulating online. On the same day the newly-blocked terms were introduced, eight netizens were arrested for spreading rumors.
By Daisy Luther
Yesterday, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, and search engine Google announced their intentions to censor – um, crack down on – so-called “misinformation” about the coronavirus that is spreading across the globe.
Before we get started here, admittedly, there’s some absolutely terrible advice out there about preventing or curing coronavirus. There are some really wild stories about the origin of the virus which may or may not be true. But the issue here is that social media networks are setting themselves up as the arbiters of truth, making it seem as though the rest of us are incapable of separating good information from bad information.
Facebook is taking action.
Kang-Xing Jin, Facebook’s head of health, wrote:
Our global network of third-party fact-checkers are continuing their work reviewing content and debunking false claims that are spreading related to the coronavirus. When they rate information as false, we limit its spread on Facebook and Instagram and show people accurate information from these partners. We also send notifications to people who already shared or are trying to share this content to alert them that it’s been fact-checked.
We will also start to remove content with false claims or conspiracy theories that have been flagged by leading global health organizations and local health authorities that could cause harm to people who believe them. We are doing this as an extension of our existing policies to remove content that could cause physical harm. We’re focusing on claims that are designed to discourage treatment or taking appropriate precautions. This includes claims related to false cures or prevention methods — like drinking bleach cures the coronavirus — or claims that create confusion about health resources that are available. We will also block or restrict hashtags used to spread misinformation on Instagram, and are conducting proactive sweeps to find and remove as much of this content as we can. (source)
So, don’t worry, friends. “Independent fact-checkers” from the Ministry of Truth will protect you from conspiracy theories and false claims.
Maarten Schenk from Lead Stories, a fact-checking organization working with Facebook, scoffed at some of the “conspiracy theories” he’s seen in a comment to CNN.
If we set out to design a highly addictive platform that optimized the most toxic, destructive aspects of human nature, we’d eventually come up with social media.
Social problems arise when initially harmless addictions explode in popularity, and economic problems arise when the long-term costs of the addictions start adding up. Political problems arise when the addictions are so immensely profitable that the companies skimming the profits can buy political influence to protect their toxic products from scrutiny and regulation.
That describes both the tobacco industry before its political protection was stripped away and social media today, as the social media giants hasten to buy political influence to protect their immensely profitable monopolies from scrutiny and regulation.
It’s difficult to measure the full costs of addictions because our system focuses on price discovery at the point of purchase, meaning that absent any regulatory measuring of long-term consequences, the cost of a pack of cigarettes is based not on the long-term costs but solely on the cost of producing and packaging the tobacco into cigarettes, and the enterprise side: marketing, overhead and profit.
(I address the consequences of what we don’t measure in my latest book, Will You Be Richer or Poorer?)
To take tobacco as an example, the full costs of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day for 20 years is not limited to the cost of the cigarettes: 365 days/year X 20 years X 2 packs (14,600) X cost per pack ($5 each) $73,000.
The full costs might total over $1 million in treatments for lung cancer and heart disease, and the reduction in life span and productivity of the smoker. (The emotional losses of those who lose a loved one to a painful early death is difficult to assign an economic value but it is very real.)
If the full costs of the nicotine addiction were included at the point of purchase, each pack of cigarettes would cost about $70 ($1,000,000 / 14,600). Very few people could afford a habit that costs $140 per day ($51,000 per year).
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is in the spotlight for “dining with far-right figures,” and their influence over the information that appears in your feed is apparent. However, Facebook isn’t the only Silicon Valley firm that’s masquerading as nonpartisan as it curates the “facts” you see in ads, posts, or searches: Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and others are deeply wedded to the U.S. security state and the billionaires it upholds.
Walter Lippmann’s groundbreaking 1922 study of the news media, “Public Opinion,” begins with a chapter titled, “The World Outside and the Pictures in our Heads,” in which he presents the media as a bottleneck through which information about the world beyond the perception of our senses must pass. Aside from the question of which stories get passed through that bottleneck, which information about an event that survives the crucible of condensation into an article, news bulletin or wire is determined by the biases of the writer and editor. In turn, control over that information bottleneck gives the controller incredible power to shape the consciousness of readers about “the world outside” – the “manufacturing of consent,” as Lippmann originally described it.
The depth of information about the world made available by the internet seems to remove the bottleneck about which Lippmann fretted — indeed, a generation of techie evangelists tried to present it in just such a manner — but the truth is that it only further obscured both the bottlenecks and the crucibles that distill information for our consumption.
The media giants that control our access to information, from search engines like Google to social media like Facebook, have turned themselves into portals to the world and present themselves as impartial in that role. However, behind a facade of separateness, strong connecting links bind the tech giants to the oligarchy and security state on which they rely, giving the interests of the elite determinative influence over which information we access.
This article will expose and discuss some of the many ways this shady web of influence and oversight operates.
The revolving door between these tech companies and intelligence agencies, think tanks, defense contractors and security companies is constantly revolving, especially at the higher echelons of important departments,
A.I. driven social scores to supplant the Constitution?
Professor Larry Backer of Penn State University writes in a 2018 paper that resistance to social credit systems in the West could be dissolved when the masses are “socialized… as a collective” and “…the great culture management machinery of Western society develop a narrative in which such activity is naturalized within Western culture.”
A 2018 paper written by prominent law professor Larry Backer of Penn State discussed the ways in which a social credit system could be implemented in the West. Backer writes that the shift in law with this system will “…change the focus of public law from Constitution and rule of law to analytics and algorithm…”
In the paper, titled “Next Generation Law: Data Driven Governance and Accountability Based Regulatory Systems in the West, and Social Credit Regimes in China“, Backer describes moves to social credit in the West as “fractured”, but gives guidance on how societal norms could be steadily pushed to accept this system.
Backer proposes that the “great culture management machinery” of the West normalize the idea of social credit and sharing private data. Backer writes:
But is it possible to socialize the masses, or even mass democracy as a collective, to embrace this pattern of data disclosure beyond these immediately self-serving closed loop systems? Would it be possible for the state to develop systems for the enforcement of laws (criminal and regulatory) that depends on intelligence by inducing the masses to serve as positive contributors of data necessary for enforcement or regulation? The answer, in Western liberal democracies, may depend on the ability of the great culture management machinery of Western society– its television, movies and other related media–to develop a narrative in which such activity is naturalized within Western culture.
As Big Tech and artificial intelligence creep further into our lives, a grid of high tech surveillance has entangled us. As if to pacify resistance, these systems (Google Home, Apple watches, Amazon Alexa) offer “convenience” in the form of targeted ads, personalized content and other features.
Twitter has suspended multiple large Cuban media accounts for reasons the social media platform has yet to explain as of this writing, a move which journalist Dan Cohen has described as “the equivalent of silencing CNN, Fox, WaPo and NPR’s accounts” for that nation. The Union of Cuban Journalists has denounced the move as censorship.
Last month we saw Twitter suspend hundreds of accounts which it claims originated in mainland China for engaging in “covert, manipulative behaviors” against the Hong Kong protests, with Facebook and Google/YouTube following suit in the creepy, uniform coordination we’ve come to expect between these social media giants. In June of this year Twitter removed thousands of accounts it claims were associated with the governments of Iran, Russia and Venezuela, as well as 130 accounts reportedly tied to the Catalan independence movement in Spain. In May Twitter removed 2,800 of what it claimed were “inauthentic accounts originating in Iran.” Earlier this year, Twitter and Facebook coordinated with each other to remove hundreds of accounts they claim were tied to “coordinated influence operations” in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
Cuba, China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and the Catalan independence movement. Noticing a pattern here?
Twitter just suspended the accounts of the biggest media outlets in Cuba and has given no reason. This is the equivalent of silencing CNN, Fox, WaPo and NPR’s accounts, but Cuba is a target of the empire so these arbitrary suspensions don’t generate outrage. https://t.co/0fgEiX8bjL
— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) September 12, 2019
If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the dynamics of empire, you will immediately recognize all of these purges as having targeted groups which are not aligned with the US-centralized power alliance. There have been no comparable mass social media purges of groups that are aligned with the US-centralized empire; a few accounts critical of Beijing were accidentally suspended from Twitter in June and replaced with a hasty apology, and a few Saudi bots were removed for defaming Jamal Khashoggi after his death, but that’s as close as you’ll find to any non-empire-aligned purge.
By Mac Slavo
A Harvard student has been denied entry to the United States because of what friends of his posted on social media. Ismail Ajjawi reportedly had his visa canceled after hours of questioning at Boston’s airport by the USSA.
Silicon Valley is already hard at work manipulating behavior, taking on the role of an authoritarian government, and attempting to punish people for not acting the way they see fit. But it’s gone a step further. The government is now rejecting entry to the country for foreigners based on their friends’ actions and social media posts. This is the dystopian future George Orwell warned us about in his iconic book, 1984.
Written 70 years ago, 1984 was Orwell’s chilling prophecy about the future. And while 1984, the year, has come and gone, his dystopian vision of a government that will do anything to control the narrative is timelier than ever.
Ajjawi’s friends posted “political points of view that oppose the United States,” reported CNET. The U.S. government is obviously probing visa applicants’ social media profiles and punishing people for their friends’ opinions. Ajjawi, from Lebanon, didn’t actually do anything wrong. He’s “guilty by association.” The U.S. government is one of totalitarian control and wants ultimate power over everything, including your very thoughts and opinions. This is a truly horrific time in human history.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesperson Michael McCarthy said in an emailed statement that he couldn’t offer specific details on Ajjawi’s case due to confidentiality clauses. “This individual was deemed inadmissible to the United States based on information discovered during the CBP inspection,” he wrote. Ajjawi, who got a scholarship to study in the U.S., returned home to Lebanon over the weekend. He and the university are working to resolve the matter before classes start next Tuesday.
The establishment is working extra hard to make sure that their official narrative is the only acceptable line of thought.
This article was sourced from SHTFPlan.com
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth,
The use of social media has been linked to an increase in depressive symptoms in teenagers, according to researchers at Montreal’s Sainte-Justine Hospital, according to the CBC.
In a new study led by University of Montreal psychiatry professor Patricia Conrod, adolescents were studied over a four-year period to investigate the relationship between depression and various forms of screen time.
Patricia Conrod, left, is a professor of psychiatry at Université de Montréal. She worked on the study with Elroy Boers, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Sainte-Justine Hospital in Montreal. (Kate McKenna/CBC)
“What we found over and over was that the effects of social media were much larger than any of the other effects for the other types of digital screen time,” said Conrod.
The researchers studied the behaviour of over 3,800 young people from 2012 until 2018. They recruited adolescents from 31 Montreal schools and followed their behaviour from Grade 7 until Grade 11.
The teenagers self-reported the number of hours per week that they consumed social media (such as Facebook and Instagram), video games and television.
Conrod and her team found an increase in depressive symptoms when the adolescents were consuming social media and television. –CBC
The study was published in the JAMA Pediatrics journal on Monday.
Unsurprising to some, the study found that all forms of screen time are bad, but that consuming social media was the most harmful. Conrod and her colleague, Elroy Boers, found that being active on platforms like Instagram – where teens can compare their dismal, boring lives to those of glitzy ‘influencers,’ cause the most depression.
“It exposes young people to images that promote upward social comparison and makes them feel bad about themselves,” said Conrod. “These sort of echo chambers — these reinforcing spirals — also continually expose them to things that promote or reinforce their depression, and that’s why it’s particularly toxic for depression.”
The researchers also observed whether the additional screen time was taking away from things generally known to reduce depression, such as exercise and fun interacting with other human beings, but found no link.
‘A good pastime’
The following is adapted from “Social Media Upheaval,” a recently published book by University of Tennessee law Professor Glenn Reynolds.
A few years ago, I noticed that I really enjoyed reading on airplanes and wondered why. After a bit of reflection, I realized that it was because I wasn’t distracted by the temptation to check a device every now and then, allowing reading to be the kind of immersive experience I once took for granted.
Now I make a point of semi-disconnecting every night, sitting down with a novel and a glass of wine, with my computer and phone out of reach. I try to do the same thing when I’m reading for work instead of pleasure, setting my devices aside so that I can read deeply and really think about things, but it’s always a struggle. And I don’t think that I’m alone.
I’m not suggesting something as simplistic as books good, Internet bad. There’s nothing inherently good about books as such – Das Kapitaland Mein Kampf are both books with murderous consequences, and books that obviously did nothing to improve their readers’ critical thinking abilities.
But the capacity for deep reading and deep thinking is a valuable one, and one that is being tossed aside for no particular reason. As Fulford notes, “Universities report that students now avoid signing on for classes in 19th century literature. They realize they can no longer work through Dickens or George Eliot.”
In his classic The System of Freedom of Expression, Yale First Amendment scholar Thomas Emerson wrote:
Freedom of expression is an essential process for examining knowledge and discovering truth. An individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to opposition, and make full use of different minds.
The kind of deep, wide ranging, multipolar community debate that Emerson envisioned as key to our system of freedom of expression is at odds with the surface skimming, tribal, catch phrase-based nature of social media.
It’s unfortunate that social media not only makes such debate more difficult on its platforms,
If You Use Social Media You Support the Gestapo Police State
Paul Craig Roberts
Americans, being an insouciant people, are unaware and unconcerned that their addiction to social media supports the Gestapo Police State. Both Twitter and Facebook are mechanisms by which the police state imposes censorship on Americans and casts aside the First Amendment. Social media is also used to isolate truth-tellers and to disappear dissidents who expose the official lies used to control people by controlling the explanations that they receive.
The latest strike against freedom is by the fascist organization Twitter which has just suspended the support account for WikiLeaks founder, and Washington victim, Julian Assange.
The suspension of the WikiLeaks account tells you all you need to know about the fascist excrement that runs Twitter. Pitty the poor people who work for Twitter or have any investment interest in it and those addicted to its use. The entirety of their integrity has been taken away from them by the servants of the police state that run the company. Every employee and investor and user has been made complicit in Washington’s gestapo isolation of a truth-teller in order to more easily falsely prosecute Assange. How is it possible that any decent person would work for, or invest in, or use the product of, such a nazi piece of shit company? It is the insouciant American people themselves who are creating the Gestapo Police State.
Alice Echtermann, Correctiv / 11. Jul 2019 –
Das Foto zeigt Menschen auf der «Sea-Watch 3» – aber der Bildausschnitt führt in die Irre.
Die Facebook-Seite «Befreiter Blick» verbreitet ein Foto, das die geretteten Menschen an Bord des Schiffes «Sea-Watch 3» zeigen soll. Auf dem Bild ist eine Gruppe Männer zu sehen. Es wurde mehr als 2800 Mal geteilt.
Der Beitrag auf der Facebook-Seite «Befreiter Blick» vom 1. Juli 2019. (Screenshot und Schwärzung: Correctiv)
Der Kommentar der Seite «Befreiter Blick» dazu lautet: «Hier eine Aufnahme der kürzlich ‘geretteten’ Frauen und Kinder von der SeaWatch3…». Da der Bildausschnitt nur Männer zeigt, wird mit dem Satz impliziert, es seien gar keine Frauen oder Kinder an Bord des Schiffes gewesen.
Doch das stimmt nach Angaben von «Sea-Watch» nicht. Das Originalbild stützt die Darstellung der Organisation. Laut «Sea-Watch» wurden am 12. Juni insgesamt 53 Menschen vor der Küste Libyens aufgenommen, «unter ihnen 9 Frauen, 39 Männer, 2 Kleinkinder und 3 unbegleitete Minderjährige». Einige «besonders schutzbedürftige Personen» durften an Land gehen noch bevor die «Sea Watch 3» im Hafen der sizilianischen Insel Lampedusa anlegte. Medien wie Spiegel Online berichten von 13 Menschen, darunter «Frauen, Kranke und Kinder», die vorzeitig an Land gebracht wurden. In Lampedusa verliessen Medienberichten zufolge etwa 40 Menschen das Schiff.
Bildausschnitt taucht auf ungarischer Webseite auf
Eine Bilder-Rückwärtssuche führt zunächst zur ungarischen Webseite Vadhajtasok. Dort wird in einem Artikel vom 1. Juli über die Kapitänin Carola Rackete berichtet. Und es ist der gleiche Bildausschnitt zu sehen, der auf Facebook verbreitet wird. Darunter steht: «’Hungrige, arme Flüchtlinge’ auf dem Schiff Sea-Watch 3». Die Worte «hungrig, arm» sind in Anführungszeichen gesetzt, womit wohl angedeutet werden soll, die abgebildeten Menschen seien eben dies nicht.
Op-Ed by Atilla Sulker
Individuals from all corners of the political spectrum have been stirred up by the recent bans of various figures including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan. Some have praised these bans for providing good constraints on what they deem “fake news” or “hate speech.” Others have attacked these bans for being influenced by nefarious motives that are contra free speech. The debate regarding the extent to which social media sites may regulate speech has been going on for years now. Perhaps it is time for a reassessment.
The Fallacy of “Social Media Homogenization”
One of the biggest fallacies people fail to avoid in these debates is that all social media sites are homogenous goods. The successful entrepreneur understands the importance of differentiation in marketing their product, for it is differentiation that allows the entrepreneur to narrow down his market and attract consumers.
Just as in any other market, the social media titans, Facebook and Twitter, have developed very differently from each other, and each has its own distinctive features. Facebook has developed best for allowing like-minded people to connect with each other, while Twitter has become a bully pulpit for various figures in the political and pop culture world.
It would thus be wrong to compare all social media sites as if they were the same. The various consumer ends each social media site serves to satisfy determines its overall development. Many different factors will influence these ends. Among one of these factors is the extent to which speech is regulated.
If a given social media site aims to assist individuals and firms in networking with each other, they will likely not have any role in the market of sharing controversial opinions. Conversely, the social media platform that aims at giving a voice to those on the fringes of society will likely have no interest in entering the market of business networking. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, it is a fallacy to paint all social media sites with a broad brush stroke. Each one of them serves a unique purpose, and this purpose has a huge impact on how the site will develop in the longer run.
So perhaps the solution does not lie in calling for state interventions and boldly proclaiming that social media sites are ruthless monopolies trampling on free speech.
Social media offers hope of achieving higher online social status without having to succeed financially in a winner-take-most economy.
I’ve often addressed the decline of social mobility and the addictive nature of social media, and recently I’ve entertained the crazy notion that the two dynamics are related. Why Is Social Media So Toxic?
I have long held that the decline of social mobility–broad-based opportunities to get ahead financially and socially–is part of a larger dynamic I call social depression: the social decay resulting from economic stagnation and the decline of social mobility and financial security. America’s Social Depression Is Accelerating
Japan offers a real-world 29-year lab experiment in the negative social consequences of economic stagnation, a top I addressed back in 2010: The Non-Financial Cost of Stagnation: “Social Recession” and Japan’s “Lost Generations”
The conventional explanation of social media’s addictive hold is that it activates the human brain’s reward circuits much like an addictive drug: in effect, we become addicted to being “liked” and to checking our phones hundreds of times a day to see if we received any “likes”.
This phenomenon is known as FOMO, fear of missing out: fear of missing out on some emotion-stimulating “news” or a “like” from someone in our network.
The innate addictive appeal of social media is pretty clear, but is that all that’s at work here?
Being social animals, humans naturally seek to identify their status in the pecking order and improve their position by whatever means are available as a way of increasing their reproductive success and their relative share of resources.
Traditional societies were bifurcated into a small elite and a much larger mass of commoners. As a general rule, social mobility was limited to those extraordinary commoners who were especially valuable to the ruling elite as soldiers, scribes, etc.
From its inception in the early 1800s, the American Dream was to acquire the “good life” via mass produced luxury goods. This has been the mainstay of the modern consumer economy, a consumption-based economy that became dependent on credit in the 20th century.
The downside of mass-produced luxury items (status symbols) is that in a credit-based economy,
Some well-informed Americans may be aware of China’s horrifying “Social Credit System” that was recently unveiled as a method of eradicating any dissent in the totalitarian state. Essentially freezing out anyone who does not conform to the state’s version of the ideal citizen, the SCS is perhaps the most frightening control system being rolled out today. That is, until you consider what is coming next.
Unbeknownst to most people, there appears to be a real attempt to create a system in which all citizens are rationed their “wages” digitally each month in place of a paycheck, including the ability to gain or lose money. This system would see any form of dissent resulting in the cut off of those credits and the ability to work, eat, or even exist in society. It would not only be the end of dissent but of any semblance of real individuality.
Here’s how the Social Credit System operates in China.
First, however, for those who are unaware of the Social Credit System as it operates in China, we should briefly describe just what has taken place there. The Social Credit System in China isn’t merely a punishment for criticizing the state as is the case in most totalitarian regimes, the SCS can bring the hammer down for even the slightest infraction such as smoking in a non-smoking zone.
One summary of the SCS can be found in Business Insider’s article by Alexandra Ma entitled “China has started ranking citizens with a creepy ‘social credit’ system — here’s what you can do wrong, and the embarrassing, demeaning ways they can punish you,” where Ma writes,
The Chinese state is setting up a vast ranking system that will monitor the behavior of its enormous population, and rank them all based on their “social credit.”
The “social credit system,” first announced in 2014, aims to reinforce the idea that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful,” according to a government document.
The program is due to be fully operational nationwide by 2020, but is being piloted for millions of people across the country already.
Als ich den ersten Artikel über das chinesische Sesame Credit-System (heute Social Credit) verfasste, schrieb man den 23.Dezember 2015. Ich schloß den damaligen Eintrag NWO: Der beste Weg der staatlichen Überwachung ist die Selbstkontrolle mit den Worten:
Einige Dinge mögen in diesem System des “Sesame Credit” erst in einigen Jahren vollständig implementiert sein und daher mag es seine wahre Effektivität noch verbergen können, aber es wird durch den Charakter der Selbstzensur und Selbstüberwachung das effektivste Instrument der Eliten sein, um ihre Stellung bewahren und ihre Vorstellung einer neuen Ordnung umsetzen zu können.
Und eines dürfte klar sein: es ist nur eine Frage der Zeit bis auch hier bei uns dieser feuchte Traum der Überwachungsjunkies und selbsternannten Eliten diskutiert und dann eingeführt wird.
Die staatlichen Begehrlichkeiten – auch in Europa – ein ähnliches System zu implementieren sind heute für jeden sichtbar, der es nur sehen will. Auch der Westen will lieber heute als morgen ein “Social Credit”-Bewertungssystem nach chinesischem Muster einführen, um jeden Bürger zu taxieren. Während Peking das Zieljahr 2020 ausgegeben hat, scheint eine “staatliche Bewertung des Verhalten eines Bürgers” in anderen Ländern noch in ferner Zukunft zu liegen. Aber ist es wirklich so, dass man nur in China ein System aktiv umsetzt, dass das Verhalten eines Menschen, das Befolgen von Regeln, das Abnicken staatlicher Propaganda, das kritiklose Dasein als “guter Bürger”, dass all das nur ein Traum der Kommunistischen Partei Chinas ist? Dass nur Peking das “Fehlverhalten seiner schlechten Bürger” (Besuch systemkritischer Websiten, gesellschaftliches politisches Engagement jenseits des Politwillens der Regierung, selbst das “Kennen von Menschen” mit einem niedrigen Social Credit-Wert) bestrafen will? Dass nur das Riesenreich Menschen ausschließen will, wenn diese nicht dem “entsprechen”, wie die Regierung ihre Bürger “haben will”, und sie bzw. ihre Kinder via Studienverbot an öffentlichen Universitäten, Arbeitsverbot in bestimmten Branchen, usw. entrechtet?
Sicherlich kann sich jeder vorstellen, dass dieses System weltweit von Regierungen beobachtet und als positiv empfunden wird. Mit Venezuela hat sich nun ein weiteres Land daran gemacht, sein sozialistisches Paradies mittels einer neuen Identifikationskarte umzusetzen, mit deren Hilfe man die Bürger und ihre Aktivitäten nachverfolgen und eine Datenbank befüllen kann.
Say the wrong things and you might get kicked off of your favorite social media platform.
Tech titans Apple, Facebook, and YouTube have wiped out talk-show host Alex Jones’s social media presence on the Internet. But the social media crusades weren’t over.
Facebook recently took down popular pages like Liberty Memes and hundreds of other prominent libertarian-leaning pages . In the wake of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, social media network Gab was on the receiving end of suspensions from payment processors like PayPal and Stripe and cloud hosting company Joyent. Although these companies did not provide clear explanations for their dissociation with Gab, the media had a field day when they learned that the synagogue shooter, Robert Bowers, had an account with the social media network.
Should libertarians fear social media de-platforming? Or is this a case of private actors exercising their legitimate property rights by excluding those they wish to no longer do business with?
The Blurring Lines of the Public & Private Sector
Since the question of de-platforming has popped up, some conservatives have proposed state-based solutions to solve this problem. In a role reversal, conservative commentator Ann Coulter suggested that the governmentpass anti-discrimination laws to prevent social media platforms from de-platforming conservatives. Ideological consistency is a lot to ask for from seasoned veterans of Conservative Inc these days.
Nevertheless, Coulter expanded on why the 1st Amendment protections must be extended to social media:
We need to apply the First Amendment to social media companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, because it is a public square, and there is precedent for that and it’s gotta be done, because this is really terrifying, and talk about chilling speech when they’re just throwing people off right and left.
Although private entities are within their rights to decide with whom they do business, libertarians should not completely dismiss concerns about social media censorship. The first question we must ask: How separate from the State are these social media giants in the first place?
Just about every website owner I know is feeling personally victimized by the recent social media purge that has been going on. But here’s an interesting fact: it isn’t, as is widely perceived, just conservative voices that are being silenced. It is dissenting voices.
It’s the voices of critical thinkers whose ideas run the gamut of philosophies who find that they no longer have much in the way of reach.
This social media purge affects everyone, even people who are not on social media. It does so in several ways:
- Dissenting information is silenced which stifles discussion
- Young people who are avid consumers of social media are being literally brainwashed because they only see one side of the story – any story
- The social media purge harms websites that post non-establishment information because it stamps out their ability to reach readers who would be interested in their content.
- The unfairly biased search results show people who are trying to learn more about a topic only one side of the information.
You don’t have to be on a Twitter feed to see how this is an overwhelmingly anti-American problem. Like it or not, social media is a monumental source of information these days, and when it’s censored to only show one point of view, the future of our republic is in peril. We are well on our way to peak censorship and this has been carefully orchestrated.
Non-establishment websites are in trouble.
Their website traffic is plummeting because they no longer show up anywhere near the top of search results. Their posts on social media are not presented to the public – or even the people who deliberately opted to “follow” them. Here’s an example from my own page. I have more than 30K people who chose to follow my page, as you can see in the top image. But in the bottom image, you can see how many of those people were actually shown my post. And this was actually a more successful one than many.
And the same thing goes for social media like Twitter too. I have an email list and if I didn’t, I’d hardly reach anyone.
When they were first created, these social media platforms were essentially neutral, and they really did greatly contribute to the marketplace of ideas. But now there is a tremendous effort to censor voices that are a threat to the establishment, and in recent months we have witnessed the greatest purge of conservative voices in the history of the Internet.
Anything that does not conform to the agenda of the elite is being labeled as “hate speech”, and countless anti-establishment voices have had social media accounts either “shadow-banned” or terminated completely. Needless to say, this could dramatically affect the outcome of the elections in November.
And it isn’t just political voices that are being silenced. As you will see at the end of this article, Facebook has been shutting down dozens and dozens of alternative health pages.
Why would they do that?
Well, the New World Order absolutely hates when people start questioning conventional medicine, vaccines and the giant pharmaceutical companies. Rather than engaging in legitimate debate, they would rather shut down dissenting voices instead.
Before the Internet came along, the elite had a virtual monopoly over the flow of information in our society. They owned all of the television networks, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, etc.
But then the Internet happened, and all of a sudden ordinary people like you and I could communicate with one another on a mass scale without having to go through the gatekeepers. It was a wonderful thing, but we all knew that it wouldn’t be like that forever.
We can debate the extent to which the globalists are directly pulling the strings at these social media companies behind the scenes, but the end result of all of this censorship is evident to all of us. Anti-establishment voices are being silenced, and the agenda of the New World Order is being advanced.
At this point, the censorship of anti-establishment voices is so obvious that even liberal news outlets are reporting on it. The following comes from Vice News…
The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter,
Ben jij baanloos, bijstandsgerechtigd, ongediplomeerd schoolverlater, dakloos, vluchteling, ernstig ziek, schuldenaar of ex-gedetineerd? Dan is de kans groot dat je gedurende je schuldhulp, inburgering of reïntegratie voor een bank, zoals de Rabobank, een zorgverzekeraar, zoals het CZ, of een subsidiefonds, zoals het Oranje Fonds, moet werken. En nee, de financiële opbrengsten gaan niet naar jou of naar een collectieve pot, maar via de overheid naar particuliere kapitaalbezitters. Dit proces van zogeheten Social Impact Bonds is gestaag in opmars. Tegen deze privatisering en kapitalisering en tegen de verdergaande disciplinering van arm gemaakte mensen dienen we ons met hand en tand te verzetten.
(Door Bart de Baan en Puk Pent, oorspronkelijk verschenen bij Doorbraak, illustratie: Voorkant van een brochure van ABN AMRO)
Bij het uitpluizen van de uitbuitconstructie Flextensie zien we dat de Rabobank Foundation onder andere in Zaandam het een en ander voorfinanciert. We staan daar niet zo bij stil totdat eind januari 2018 de gemeente Veldhoven met veel bombarie een Social Impact Bond (SIB) aankondigt: “Investeerders financieren de inburgering van statushouders”. De Rabobank Foundation blijkt ook dit project te voorfinancieren. Vluchtelingen die moeten inburgeren, blijken daartoe zo goed als zelf een speciaal opgerichte “startup” te moeten draaien. Deze constructie wordt in de mainstream alom geprezen: “Wat goed, zeg, het bedrijfsleven gaat doen wat de zich terugtrekkende overheid nalaat…”. Ook D66-minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid Wouter Koolmees ziet wel brood in deze en andere SIBs.
In maart 2018 brengt de gemeente Venlo naar buiten dat er “de komende twee jaar 50 bijstandsgerechtigden met een grote afstand tot de arbeidsmarkt” aan een baan worden ‘geholpen’ in een constructie met de ‘sociale’ onderneming Rendiz. Uiteraard rinkelen de alarmbellen bij deze aankondiging van een tewerkstellingsproject én de vermelding van de Rabobank Foundation. En jawel, daar is die Impact Bond weer.
Wat is een Social Impact Bond (SIB)?
Een onderneming of organisatie ‘krijgt’ geld van private investeerders (banken en fondsen), al dan niet na een aanbestedingsprocedure waarin een ondernemer het inhoudelijke deel van een SIB bedenkt. Met dat geld gaat een lokaal of landelijk overheidssproject worden uitgevoerd, met een gemiddelde looptijd van twee tot vijf jaar en bedoeld voor mensen aan de onderkant van de samenleving.
At the World Social Forum in Salvador de Bahia, thousands of people took to the streets “in the name of democracy”: the women’s movement, Black Lives Matter, Environmentalists, Indigenous People’s Organizations, the Landless Farmers Movement, Youth Organizations, Students, LGBT, among others.
As part of the 13th World Social Forum they marched to the slogan:
“Resist is to Create. Resist is to Transform”
“Resistir É Criar, Resistir É Transformar”
The leaders and organizers of the WSF in Salvador, Brazil are in persistent denial; surely by now they should acknowledge that the WSF venue –including travel expenses– are funded by the same corporate interests which are the object of widespread political and social “RESISTANCE” and dissent.
How convenient. The corporations are funding dissent with a view to controlling dissent and the WSF organizers are complicit.
“The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Ford, Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Wall Street and Big Oil), etc. with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.” (M. C, 2016)
The WSF is said to have transformed progressive movements, leading to what is described as the emergence of the “Global Left”. Nonsense. Real progressive movements have been shattered, largely as a result of the funding of dissent.
What is this Global Left, does it have a grassroots movement?
It is largely composed of “Leftist Intellectuals” and “Organizers”. They say they are fighting Neoliberalism.
But their WSF movement is largely “funded by neoliberalism”. .
People who participated in the WSF Venue
did not know that “RESIST” GLOBAL CAPITALISM
is funded by “GLOBAL CAPITALISM”.
They have been misled by the WSF organizers.
In other words, while the WSF Resist to Transform logo is meaningful, in practice it is also redundant.
Colonial Reparations were contemplated at the World Social Forum 2018, meeting in Salvador, Brazil
The theme of reparations at the 2018 World Social Forum in Salvador de Bahia was treated in the workshop Repairs to Colonialism,
An estimated 170 Colombian social leaders were killed in 2017, up from 117 in 2016, according to the Institute of Studies for Peace Development, Indepaz, a Colombian non-governmental organization.
“The rise in homicides is over two main conflicts: (access to) land and (natural) resources. This latter refers to the rentiership in illegal mining and cultivation of illicit crops,” said Indepaz director Camilo Gonzalez Posso.
The report indicated that the murders are highly localized to four regional departments: Nariño (28), Antioquia (23), Valle (14) and Choco (12). There were 32 assassinations alone in the community of San Jose de Apartado Cauca located in Antioquia.
Posso added that the community leader killings in Cauca, Nariño and Choco are related to land conflicts, while those in Bajo Cauca are related to illegal mining.
“The majority of the killings are committed by armed men in areas where previously the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) used to rule.”
Leonardo Gonzalez, also of Indepaz, said that as the FARC left these territories, killings have increased.
The FARC began as a Marxist guerrilla movement in 1960s that advocated for peasant access to farmland. It gained the support of peasants and activists in rural areas over the past several decades. The administration of President Juan Manuel Santos eventually reached an accord with the FARC in November 2016, which included the group’s disarmament. Since the FARC’s leaving, violent right-wing paramilitaries have taken over.
“Where the (FARC) left, other paramilitaries … have arrived to take over the territories, by force”, Gonzalez said.
Maribel Perafan, the country’s Secretary of Government, said that the government is prioritizing the investigation into the 170 deaths. She said it’s necessary to “institutionalize” the protection of the human rights and social leaders.
Yet, social rights defenders in these areas have no guarantees, contended Modesto Serna from the Choco government. He said that the FARC’s leaving has left a vacuum, which hasn’t been replaced by the state, but “criminal gangs.” “We can’t fool ourselves,” he said of those who deny this is the scenario in Colombia.
The government created the National Protection Unity, UNP, after the historic agreement was reached to protect against potential threats and killings of social rights leaders in Colombia.