Da Elon Musk gav en række rigtige journalister adgang til et lille kig ind bag gardinet i Twitters interne kommunikation, fandt de dokumentationen for, hvad alle har vidst, nemlig at Twitter censurerede ud fra de ansattes ideologiske præferencer. Og når man går ind for at censurere, er det fordi ens ideologiske præference er venstreorienteret.
Hvad man også kunne se var, at efterretningstjenesterne og andre statslige myndigheder havde opbygget et censur samarbejde med Twitter. Den unge og idealistiske moderatorer, thi sådan kaldes censorerne, blev kontaktet af især FBI, der bad dem dæmpe denne eller hin post, ikke fordi de var ulovlige, men mennesker kunne potentielt komme til skade og endda dø, hvis højrefløjens frivole omgang med rationalismen og usædelige spørgsmål til magten bare fik lov at boltre sig på nettet. Som de unge idealister vænnede sig til at arbejde for myndighederne, tog censuren til. Valgbenægtere, tranfober, anti-vaxxere, racister, misogynister… alt blev slettet eller hæmmet for udbredelse.
Da FBI fik Joe Bidens søn Hunter Bidens bærbare computer i hænderne, vidste de, at de sad med overvældende beviser, om ikke blot Hunters depraverede ulovligheder med stoffer og mindreårige prostituerede, men også Biden familiens omfattende korruption. Det har været dem en stor glæde, fordi de nu kunne fængsle hele den pukkelryggede Bidenfamilie og henrette dens capo crimini Joe Biden for højforræderi. Med overvældende ‘kompromat, var var Uncle Joe ‘the Inter-Agency Consensus’ klare favorit, til at lede landet på deres befaling. “It has to be Joe Biden!” som tidligere FBI direktør James Comey sagde, “It has to be!”
For så kunne ‘The Inter-Agency Consensus’ køre biksen USA helt efter deres eget hoved.
Men nu skal det ikke handle om krigen i Ukraine, men eksemplet nævnes fordi FBI kontaktede Twitter og forberedte dem på, at Oktoberovarraskelsen i den amerikanske valgkamp, ville være en russisk desinformations-historie om Hunter Biden. Straks New York Post kom med deres første artikel, blev den dæmpet, så den ikke fik udbredelse. Efterretningsvæsenet forfattede et åbent brev, som mere end 50 tidligere og nuværende efterretningsåinger underskrev, der afviste historien som russisk desinformation. Jeå, den dybe stat sætter et åbent brev i avisen og underskriver sig med navns nævnelse. Men aviserne var ikke interesseret i eksistensen af den dybe stat men kun i at lystre, så den erklærede deres kolleger på New York Posts historie for usand og fjernet blev den fra de sociale medier.
Tak til Elon Musk for at afsløre dynamikken bag det åbenlyse. Men Facebook har Mark Zuckerberg og han er ingen Elon. Glenn Greenwald bemærker hvorledes Zuckerberg er mere forsigtig når han forsøger at behage alle – i hvert fald dem med magt
Mark Zuckerberg himself — knowing that all of this evidence was to be imminently released — complained about the constant stream of censorship pressure from the Biden WH, noting that FB was forced to censor not only debatable claims but ones that *turned out to be true*:
Og den gode Greenwald fortsætter
The only major American center of power that employs more “ex” US Security State operatives than corporate media is Big Tech.
The CIA once had to do this covertly: now they have completely infiltrated both of the key corporate disseminators of news and information in the US:
Og fortsætter – han er virkeligt værd at følge
Meet Aaron Berman: who spent his entire adult life working at @CIA, only to leave to become a top Facebook official responsible for censoring political speech.
Among other things, Aaron was the key Facebook official who censored Brazil’s debates before its 2022 election
Som Michael Scellenberger bemærker Michael Shcellenberger, så er Facebook og Youtube ikke sociale platforme; “They censor accurate info in response to White House demands and spread state-sanctioned disinformation.”
Many critics opposed Musk’s dismantling of Twitter’s massive censorship system. Zuckerberg now promises a “sane” alternative that will place consumers under the watchful eye of Meta censors.
On the first day of the rollout, millions signed up, thanks in large part to Zuckerberg linking the new platform to Instagram. The censors also got to work right away. When people tried to follow Donald Trump Jr., they were met with a warning label: “Are you sure you want to follow donaldjtrumpjr? This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or went against our Community Guidelines.”
Later, the company backed down after an outcry. But it was a telling moment. Andy Stone, who heads communications for Meta, wrote: “This was an error and shouldn’t have happened. It’s been fixed.”
(…)
Facebook has long been accused of targeting conservatives and dissenting viewpoints. Indeed, Zuckerberg’s pitch for “sane” management seemed like an appeal to those on the left who objected to the more tolerant free speech policies on Twitter after Musk’s purchase.
While there have been controversies at Musk’s Twitter over critics being banned or posts being removed, it is a fraction of the level of censorship that has long characterized Facebook and other competitors. Indeed, most of Musk’s critics attack him for reducing the “content moderation” on Twitter.
Threads’s rollout coincides with a court ruling that the government’s interventions to censor people on social media represented “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Now, Facebook is offering an alternative to Twitter, with the assurance that users will be protected against any thoughts that Meta’s staff finds problematic. While free speech on Twitter is portrayed as harmful, the company has promised to “prioritize kindness.”
That sounds eerily familiar to some of us as a way to deprioritize free speech. Recently, former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on how she and her staff would remove anything they considered “dog whistles” and “coded” messaging. Rather than using “kindness,” Twitter used undefined standards of “safety” to cancel free speech. Navaroli declared that they were unwilling to allow the safety of others “to go to the winds so that people can speak freely.”
Facebook has long tried to get the public to embrace its role as some kind of speech overlord. Years ago, Facebook rolled out an Orwellian commercial campaign to get the public to embrace censorship. The commercials showed young people heralding how they grew up on the internet and how the world was changing, creating a need for censorship under the guise of “content moderation.” Facebook, they promised, was offering the “blending of the real world and the internet world.”
Facebook is not alone in trying to get people to accept censorship. Recently, after the court ruling, various figures assured the public that they are better off letting corporate and government censors protect them from harmful thoughts. On CNN, Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly went so far as to state that it simply “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.
After this week’s decision, the New York Times immediately issued a panicky tweet that the resulting outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.”
Løgnen kræver monopolet! Når der er et alternativ, ønsker alle friheden. De nedarvede medier savner løgnen. Som ALX, der et par år var udelukket fra Twitter, indtil Musk lod ham og mange andre kættere komme tilbage, så var det bizart at se medierne “Fawning over Meta’s “Safe” so called “Twitter Killer””
Men Trådene fik et kort liv. Det viste sig, at der ikke var noget interessant at sige, hvis man censurerede det frie ord. Og de der ville have kattevideoer får det bedre andet steds. Så Stephen King og Rob Reiner er tilbage på Twitter.
The path to truth runs through free speech and open debate
Herunder en kollage af tilladte blodpropper (jeg er vaccine-tilhænger, men debat er debat)
Vores tidligere statsminister – der også plejede at være den mest inkompetente statsminister vi har haft siden krigen, altså 1864 Krigen, men som nu er slået af hendes to efterfølgere – Helle Thornings Schmidt sidder i en censur bestyrelse sammen med et sammenrend af venstreorienterede aktivister og udstikker regler for, hvem der ikke har ret til at sige sin mening, har ifølge The Federalist sagt om sit virke
“What we’re trying to find, of course, I think many of us engaging in this conversation, is that middle road. How do you moderate content and how do you find that balance between human rights and free speech, which is a human right, but also other human rights because free speech is not an absolute human right,” the Facebook Oversight Board co-chair said during a live stream of Politico’s Tech 28 spotlight.
“It has to be balanced with all the human rights and that is what the oversight is there to do,” she added.
(…)
“Now we have the oversight board which is a completely new invention to do this work and of course, I want to say that I think this is a very very positive new way of doing it,” she said, speaking highly of the tech giant’s newest censorship campaign.
Tidligere har hun sagt
“I don’t see the UN coming up with a solution that could work as quickly as the Facebook oversight board and that would have the right funding, the right members and that could take independent decisions that could be respected by the social media companies,” she said in May. “We are set up for other companies to join in the future.”
Tænk at fortsætte med at være en plage efter man har forladt politik.
Censuren kræves ikke blot at de sociale medier selv, deres ansatte, regeringer, efterretningstjenester og fallerede eks-politikere, men også allehånde politiske organistationer. Her taler to medlemmer af anti-racisme organisationen Anti Defamation League om hvorledes man skal censurere, men uden at skræmme folk helt over til frie medier
Kommende vicepræsident Vivek Ramaswamy sagde udlagde problemet stasmandsværdigt
This is the predominant form of censorship we’ve seen in tha last several years. The government is using private companies like Facebook to do through the back door what government could not do directly through the front door under the Constitution: Censor political disfavored speech!
The reality in this country is that the path to truth runs through free speech and open debate. That is why we have a First Amendment! I do not think we would have rushed to those vaccine mandates as quickly if we had been allowed to debate the facts in the open
Det er mørkest før daggry, Vivek tegner en lys fremtid.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar