The Internet Gulag:

Posted By: ConSigCor

The Internet Gulag: - 08/11/2018 05:16 PM

The Internet Gulag: Demonetization, Demonization, and Deletion

James Wesley Rawles July 10, 2018

A wave of Internet censorship is sweeping the globe. This censorship is no longer just the nefarious work of totalitarian nations. Many western nations are experiencing their own brand of censorship that is being promulgated by ostensibly “private” companies. (Although many of these are near monopoly utilities that could be classified as public accommodations.)
The War on Guns

Dozens of conservative, pro-gun videobloggers and news outlets have been demonetized by YouTube in the past two years. By flagging these sites as “not family friendly”, viewers must now toggle “Restricted Mode: Off” and even when they do, advertisements are no longer displayed. This has happened to gun vloggers like Hickok45, Demolition Ranch, and many others. And even some vloggers who only occasionally mention guns (such as Wranglerstar) have also been intermittently blacklisted. This effectively zeros their advertising revenue. The goal of YouTube liberal, globalist, and anti-gun management is clear: They want to drive these sites out of business by cutting them off from their revenue stream.

Meanwhile, Google is deliberately “de-listing” conservative sites from showing up on the first page of results in Google searches. Going far beyond just a deniable search engine “algorithm glitch”, Google has been caught hiring outside contracting firms to manipulate data, deliberately assigning “low to medium” or “poor to low” reliability to numerous news outlets including InfoWars and Natural News. They have done the same to whistleblowing sites like Wikileaks. By pushing down their search engine relevance, Google is marginalizing these sites. Google’s goal is clear: They want to remove these sites from the public eye.

Search Engine Shenanigans

Google was also caught red-handed during the 2016 presidential election cycle in manipulating the “auto fill” feature of their search engine window in completing search phrases that involved the name Hillary Clinton. This was well documented by Fortune magazine.

Concurrently, Twitter has “shadow banned” some users.

Facebook has also been caught systematically censoring posts.

Now, more than ever before, Facebook is using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to flag and delete “offensive” content. Not surprisingly, it is conservative and pro-national sovereignty sites that seem to be flagged most often.

The work of the AI algorithms often has tragi-comic results. Most recently, a blogger posted the Declaration of Independence to his Facebook page, in several installments, in honor of Independence Day. One portion of the Declaration was quickly flagged as “hate speech” by Facebook’s AI, and automagically deleted. Facebook administrators later apologized and restored the post. But this illustrates the just how arbitrary the AI juggernaut can be.


To make matters even worse, two years ago slashed the commissions for all of their “Amazon Associates” by an average of 45%. This has made it difficult for many bloggers to cover their costs.

The end result of these many maneuverings has been to marginalize and demonetize web sites, blogs, and vlogs of those who are deemed “politically incorrect.” By suppressing and manipulating search engine results, these sites are not just made unprofitable, they also disappear from public view. This is blatant censorship and an outright stifling of free public discourse.

Sequence of Events

Through the use of AI and paid opinion molders, the general direction and sequence of 21st Century Internet censorship appears to be:

Identifying politically incorrect bloggers and vloggers.
Targeting those who are the most outspoken.
Marginalization—through deliberate manipulation of search engine results.
By selectively editing content, leftist Wikipedia cabals are skewing content and even outright deleting it. The “James Wesley Rawles” Wikipedia page just barely survived multiple deletion campaigns as “Non-notable.” Some of these “Articles for Deletion” (AfD) attempts occurred after three of my books were on the New York Times Bestsellers List. (Since when is a bestseller not notable?)
Reducing revenue to remove any incentive to continue blogging or vlogging.
Demonization through miscategorization into “hate” categories. This has included attempts to fabricate conspiratorial relationships through Guilt by Association, or even –- as I have personally experienced — Guilt by Disassociation. I have been targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in a smear campaign.
Repeatedly flagging conservative blogs, vlogs, and web sites. This is done by placing “hits” or “strikes” on sites that are in any way deemed offensive.
Full Deletion of websites. Once a sufficient number of strikes have been tallied, content is removed or made invisible. This is not just piecemeal deletion of individual posts, videos, or web pages but rather wholesale deletion of entire sites. Once deleted these sites and their authors are de-ranked or even completely deleted from search engine results. Poof! Down the Memory Hole.

Our Countermeasures

In the face of this revisionism, censorship, and full-on site deletion, those who have been targeted have begun to fight back. We recognize that as private firms, companies like Facebook and Google can operate their businesses as they see fit. (The freedom of association also implies the freedom of disassociation. The phrase “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” still applies.) So, rather than by filing fruitless lawsuits, we have chosen to find alternative outlets and methodologies. These include:

Establishing fully independent web domains that are not tied to proprietary commercial services such as Blogger or YouTube.
Employing alternative services for high bandwidth video content. These presently are typified by and
Widely cross-posting content.
Setting up offshore mirror websites.
Encouraging readers to bookmark websites, so that people will continue to visit sites even after they have been expunged by search engines.
Asking sites to maintain prominent link lists and blogrolls, where content with the same political perspective is apparent.
Distributing blog archives on DVD and USB memory sticks.
Encouraging readers to print out key posts and maintain their own hard copy archives.
Preparing to distribute leaflets, printed newsletters, or e-mailed newsletters, in the event that censorship gets even more severe
Providing press credentials to all adult citizens. (We have done so though our sister site,
Making plans and setting up resources to physically move blogging staff off shore, if it becomes necessary.

All in all, Internet censorship is becoming a serious threat to the free exchange of ideas and to individual liberty. We need to defend the First Amendment rights of everyone — even those whom we politically or philosophically oppose. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately.”

Please defend freedom of the press! – JWR
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 08/14/2018 01:28 AM

Reference: Sites Google Blacklists

For your future reference. There are many GREAT sites on this list … sites that Google wants to eliminate from their search engine. Have fun checking out sites you may not have heard of before!


“Google has announced they will be doubling down on their ‘Orwellian’ practice of making stories disappear from their monopolistic search engine. Outlined in their Gestapo like 160-page handbook, Google describes exactly how they plan to suppress any information they deem unfit for readers. Highlighted at the bottom of page 108 Google states:

● Pages that directly contradict well established
scientific or medical consensus for queries seeking scientific or
medical information, unless the query indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

● Pages that directly contradict well-established
historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories), unless
the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.”

=================================================== =
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 08/14/2018 02:41 PM

Free Speech Under Fire: Globalists Bet On Chinese Dominating the Internet’s Future

Old-Thinker News | Aug. 13, 2018

By Daniel Taylor
Globalists and tech companies are signaling a willingness to submit to EU/China internet regulation. Under the backdrop of “Russian meddling” and “fake news” narratives there is an expectation among tech elites that internet regulation and law in the west will yield to a Chinese model.

In a public demonstration of their desire to gain increased access to China, Apple’s Tim Cook and Google’s Sundar Pichai made their first appearance at China’s World Internet Conference last year.

Bloomberg reporter Peter Elstrom attended the conference. When he was asked if there would be any change in the Chinese government stance on censorship in the future, he responded by saying,

“The implication comes at a time when the U.S. is wrestling with fake news on Facebook and Twitter, allegations about Russians hacking an election, and they feel like this Chinese approach has some merit, so they are making that case.”

The conference is meant to promote China’s authoritarian vision for the future of the internet and have it exported world-wide.
The next conference will be in December of this year.

Both IBM and Apple have made major moves to China. Apple has begun storing iCloud data in China, sparking fears that the company is handing over source codes to the Chinese in compliance with recently enacted cyber security laws in the communist country.

Apple’s Tim Cook personally made the recent decision to ban content from Alex Jones.

Google, under a project called “Dragonfly” is creating a censored search engine for the Chinese.

In July of this year, Facebook opened a subsidiary in China, another signal that big tech is expecting China to shape the future of the internet. As reported by the Verge,

“The office will be a $30 million subsidiary called Facebook Technology (Hangzhou), located in the city Hangzhou, which is also the headquarters of Alibaba.”

China and the EU (through the recently enacted GDPR legislation) have become global leaders in pushing a locked down model for the internet. The two power blocs have also teamed up to develop the Orwellian Internet of Things, a system that could provide the groundwork for “smart cities” world wide.

Under the backdrop of “Russian meddling” and “fake news” narratives there is an expectation among tech elites and globalists that internet regulation and law in the west will yield to this model of cyberspace.

Billionaire George Soros has championed this model to clamp down on anti EU and populist sentiment. Soros stated at Davos earlier this year that the role of social media in the election of Donald Trump is one reason why we need regulation online.

Via Breitbart:

“President Donald Trump would like to establish his own mafia-style state,” he said, claiming the President was part of the same problem as North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-un.

“In the US, regulators are not strong enough to stand up to the monopolies’ political influence. The EU is better positioned, because it doesn’t have any platform giants of its own,” he continued.

Two years ago, Bilderberg elites discussed enacting an internet ID to enhance “cyber security”. Infowars sources reported:

The Internet ID will be justified under the guise of “cybersecurity” and creating a convenient method for citizens to access government services, but free speech advocates will view the proposal with deep suspicion as it would threaten online anonymity and possibly chill dissent.

Services such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter could also use the online passport to revoke posting permission if a user violates terms of agreement, another obvious threat to the free flow of information that has made the web what it is today.

CFR President Richard Haass recently told Bloomberg that a “serious degree of anarchy” exists on the internet:

The U.S. has gone from “great preserver” of the world order to “great disrupter” says CFR President Richard Haass

— BSurveillance (@bsurveillance) July 26, 2018

With tech giants moving to censor Infowars, a dangerous precedent is being set. As it stands now, it looks like a Chinese model for the internet is being pushed onto the west by un-elected multinational corporations.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 08/15/2018 06:16 PM

World Affairs Brief August 10th


Alex Jones is the most prominent conservative fighting a battle against censorship and financial revenue as the major internet media platforms ban his content and refuse to pay him for his popular content. The Powers That Be (PTB) are working every angle to bankrupt Alex. It started months ago when YouTube denied him his advertizing revenue from the millions of viewers who watched his video commentaries. Then an establishment legal firm conjured up a lawsuit against Jones on behalf of several Sandy Hook families complaining they have been threatened and harassed by Jones supporters. This week it mushroomed to an outright censorship ban on Facebook, Youtube, the Apple Store, Spotify and others after CNN orchestrated a pressure campaign against him and targeted all the major social media tech giants. Supposedly, Alex is guilty of “hate speech,” one of those nebulous and political correct epithets that can be skewed to cover almost any criticism of anyone else. The claim of hate speech itself, if left to stand, is a major attack on the principle of free speech. This week I’ll discuss the backlash in support of Jones, and the issue of whether these are strictly private companies are, in fact, really public/private partnerships akin to public utilities that should not be able to suppress free speech.

As his online income is hit, Alex relies more and more on selling high quality health oriented products. Thus, Amazon joined in the fray this week by denying his products the “choice” label, hoping to hurt sales, even though his reviews are very high. Fox News covers the justification big Tech is using to ban Jones, and rehashes many of the false charges against him:

"Controversial Infowars star Alex Jones' removal from Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify over the past 24 hours, [is] prompting even some of the bomb thrower's staunch critics to voice censorship concerns.

Jones is a notorious conspiracy theorist who has been widely criticized for a variety of outlandish and polarizing content including discredited claims about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting."

This is the big issue the establishment is using to bludgeon Jones—his coverage of initial reports that Sandy Hook was a hoax and done by “crisis actors” and that “nobody really died” there. Jones didn’t start this bad conspiracy issue; others did, mimicking what they started in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. It’s always been bogus. These evil shootings were orchestrated by Deep State mercenaries using patsies under the influence of mood altering drugs and hypnosis.

Jones did pick it up the bogus claims of crisis actors briefly but then reversed himself and apologized numerous times for the mistake. But as Jones points out in this video defense of this current onslaught against him, the media never prints or airs his reversals and apologies. They always post his most obnoxious rants, rather than his more reasonable sessions. The most egregious and false claims against Jones were made by Facebook:

"for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."

These are simply not true. Yes, he’s been critical of transgenders, Muslims and illegals, but never told people to go out and violate their rights. And, he has apologized for buying into some of the phony conspiracy theories floating around, like the Pizzagate claims.

I recommend everyone take a few minutes to hear his side of the story. Yes, Alex is hyped up and frustrated and sometimes hard to listen to, but he’s right about this vendetta. His enemies aren’t through yet, by a long shot. They have even been telling his contract server providers that Jones has been uploading porn and other illegal things to his servers, trying to get them to shut him down. Fox continues:

"Apple removed Jones’ podcasts on Sunday and then YouTube and Facebook both declared on Monday that he was violating their terms and policies with his rhetoric. Spotify also removed all episodes of “The Alex Jones Show” from its service. Jones quickly became one of the top trends across social media with critics celebrating that he was pulled from the tech giants and others coming to his defense -- sort of."

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell echoed many pundits, stating that, while Jones is not to be taken seriously, censoring him could result in further actions against people that aren’t accepted by the mainstream media.

Like Fox News, Bozell claims to be a conservative, but both outfits are conspiracy deniers. Every “conservative” outlet in the mainstream cable or TV media knows that if they ever admit to believing in any of the major conspiracies (JFK assassination by government, OKC Bombing by government, or 9/11 as a false flag operation to justify the war on terror) they would be run out of town, just like Jones.

Bozell: “I don’t support Alex Jones and what InfoWars produces. He’s not a conservative. However, banning him and his outlet is wrong. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s a dangerous cliff that these social media companies are jumping off to satisfy CNN and other liberal outlets,” Bozell said, presumably referring to recent push by CNN to have Info Wars removed from various platforms.

Bozell said that tech giants caving to CNN’s push “is part of a disturbing trend” that includes influential conservatives being muted on Twitter.

However, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter has refused so far to bend to CNN’s demand to ban Jones. He issued this Tweet, and is now the subject of a lot of hate and backlash from the Left. But may now be giving into the pressure as Jones’ tweets are now “under review.”

“Social media sites are supposedly neutral platforms, but they are increasingly becoming opportunities for the left and major media to censor any content that they don’t like,” Bozell said. “Conservatives are increasingly concerned that InfoWars is not the end point for those who want to ban speech. It’s just the beginning. We are rapidly approaching a point where censorship of opposing voices is the norm. That’s dangerous.”

The tech giants have said they won’t tolerate hate speech, and Jones was given the boot as a result. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro wrote that much “of what Jones and his employees say is absolutely rotten pig excrement,” but added that the term hate speech is too ambiguous.

Actually, it’s impossible to define “hate speech” as a crime without completely destroying the freedom to criticize others.

“Trust in social media is declining nearly as fast as trust in media overall. There’s a reason for that. And it’s not because social media tolerates voices like Jones,” Shapiro wrote. “It’s because they don’t tolerate voices like Jones while tolerating voices who are just as bad on the political Left – and they show no signs of limiting their censorship to Alex Jones.”

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy here. And Bozell is right that it extends much further than Jones.

Conservative strategist Chris Barron said that social media platforms are not trying to stop "hate speech" or clean up the toxic culture of social media. “If they were, they would be hammering toxic folks on both sides. This is about silencing conservative voices. Period,” Barron told Fox News. Many observers warned that “Big Tech” plans on additional censorship.

As Chuck Baldwin wrote yesterday, the censors are even targeting libertarians like Ron Paul: “By removing Alex Jones, Ron Paul’s Institute For Peace And Prosperity executive director Daniel McAdams and editorial director Scott Horton from their outlets, Silicon Valley—complete with its poster establishments Facebook, Youtube, Spotify, etc.—have proven themselves to be nothing but Naziesque censors hell-bent on destroying public dissent. As Ron Paul rightly noted, ‘In an empire of lies, the truth is treason.’” Continuing the Fox News quote:

Media analyst Mark Dice tweeted, “Regardless what you think of him and Infowars, this is the equivalent of digital book burning and sets a horrifying precedent for mass censorship by Big Tech.”

Daily Wire reporter Michael Knowles wrote, “Conservatives should vigorously oppose Big Tech's censorship of Alex Jones. He may be a conspiratorial, frequently incoherent, shirtless vitamin salesman, but the Left sees no difference between him and William F. Buckley Jr. They're just establishing the principle to silence us.”

Yet another critic supported forums independently booting Jones, but decried what he called a "coordinated" effort... “this COORDINATED banishment of Jones by big social outlets creates dangerous slippery slope,” journalist Jordan Chariton tweeted.

Yes, and as John Nolte of Breitbart points out,

"The CNN story noted here is nothing less than extortion. CNN sent out a reporter to ask various companies why their ads are appearing on YouTube videos produced by Alex Jones and InfoWars. In other words, CNN is not only publicly shaming and outing these businesses, CNN is also threatening that this exposure will lead to astro-turfed harassment campaigns and boycotts."

Incredibly, as Nolte points out here, some Democrats are pushing for Big Tech to go further and ban all sites that are “dividing the nation.”

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is calling on social media monopolies to “do more than take down one website,” meaning take down more websites on top of InfoWars, which was de-platformed by YouTube, Facebook, and others on Monday.

“Infowars [sic] is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart,” Murphy tweeted Monday afternoon. “These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.”

Obviously, what Murphy sees here is an opportunity to go around the First Amendment, to kill free and open speech he disagrees with, and to accomplish that using social media giants as his hit squad.

Is It Illegal to Censor Jones? This is bound to become more of an issue as this attack on free speech continues and expands against other conservative, conspiratorial voices. The first question is “Are these companies truly private?” If yes, then they can do whatever they want on their social media platform. Or can they?

According to the reigning legal argument in civil rights and anti-discrimination circles, once you (as a private person or private company) open your business to the public, you are no longer private as to your ability to discriminate. I oppose this expansive view against the privacy of property, but as long as it is accepted by the Left, it can and should be used against them.

These social media companies are clearly inviting all the public to participate and thus are not free to discriminate. That is perhaps why they are justifying this in the name of “hate speech,” as if that gives them a legitimate test of criminality that allows for discrimination. As I and others have pointed out, you can’t make hatred illegal any more than you can any form of negative opinion against another is illegal. In fact, if there was ever was an outpouring of hatred here, it is against Alex Jones and his points of view.

You can outlaw incitement to violence, and it appears they are trying to equate hate speech to violence, as if they are always synonymous, but they are not. Only when someone is yelling hateful speech and directly inciting violence is this true, but the Left is trying to expand the view of hate speech backward to any negative criticism of someone. Point of fact: there is no way to draw the line except at the most violent prone end of the incitement spectrum. Everything less than that has to be protected speech or Free Speech is gone.

The second question is, “Is the internet a public utility?” In many respects, it is. Even though virtually all portions of the internet are owned by private companies, including the backbone, to operate without conflict, there must be some regulation of IP address and domain names in order to maintain key intellectual property rights on the internet. That used to be managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce, but that ended in 2016. It is now managed by a non-profit international consortium of stakeholders called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Legally, there are more arguments for declaring the internet as a public utility than there are against, though being international in scope, it’s fairly complex. In essence, each country is free to regulate their portion of the internet traffic as their laws allow. China, for example, chooses to censor anything critical of its communist government, or promoting religion or personal freedom.

The US has attempted to regulate the internet before, but the latest attempt was set back by the repeal of the “net neutrality” rules—which was really an attempt to regulate the internet. Ironically, this censorship controversy could actually drive legislation to do just that. Sadly, there are as many Trump supporters that want to shut down the Leftist media as there are on the Left that want to suppress the right, as Chuck Baldwin noted:

And lest conservatives whine about being the big, bad victims in this discussion, the Trumpites are as bad as the Clintonites. Neither group cares a flip about the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Natural Law. All either side wants is the POWER to have things done their way—freedom and liberty be damned.

A recent survey has discovered that nearly half of Republicans want to give President Trump the power to shut down whatever media outlets he chooses. According to The Daily Beast:

Freedom of the press may be guaranteed in the Constitution. But a plurality of Republicans want to give President Trump the authority to close down certain news outlets, according to a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos and provided exclusively to The Daily Beast.

The findings present a sobering picture for the fourth estate, with respondents showing diminished trust in the media and increased support for punitive measures against its members. They also illustrate the extent to which Trump's anti-press drumbeat has shaped public opinion about the role the media plays in covering his administration.

All told, 43 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they believed "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior." Only 36 percent disagreed with that statement.

Yes, that’s a sad commentary on conservatives’ ability to think and be guided by the proper principles of law. I’m not in favor of the government picking winners and losers, just like Big Tech is doing. Rather, there is an appropriate place for government to strengthen the right of free speech on the internet, and preclude the use of dangerous terms like “hate speech”

Stupidly, Howard Kurtz of Fox News wants to draw a line between commentary and conspiracy, as if all conspiracy claims are wrong.

After years of deflection and foot-dragging, the major tech companies are finally having to take steps toward policing their own content. They have reached this point kicking and screaming, under great public pressure, after clinging for years to the fiction that they are just public utilities and that people can use their pipes for pretty much anything. [Actually, this is the proper position.]

But now they have united, for a brief moment at least, against a major conspiracy theorist. Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify have all taken action against Alex Jones.

Then Kurtz claims ignorance by saying, “I confess I'd like to know how the four tech companies happened to take action on the same day. Perhaps they concluded there was safety in numbers.” Answer: It’s a conspiracy, dummy! But Kurtz can’t even hint that one might exist. He claims conspiracy “is not conservative—it’s at odds with reality.” Really? Conspiracies have been going on since the beginning of humanity.

They seemed to have an ally in Drudge, whose banner headline was "APPLE REGULATES HATE." But this is just a skirmish. Just recently, Mark Zuckerberg got himself into trouble by saying he saw no reason to ban pages by Holocaust deniers. [As they do in Germany.]

There is a fine line between banning hate and bullying on one hand and censoring controversial political opinions on the other. These battles will play out in a hyperpartisan political atmosphere. But for now, Apple, Facebook, Google and Spotify have all agreed there is one person who falls on the wrong side of that line.

And what line is that? He did not even offer a clue of how to draw that ethereal line on hate and negative comments or physical versus verbal bullying. And he certainly didn’t make a case against conspiracy as political commentary except in outright denial.

The Backlash Against Censoring Jones:
The PTB may have started a war they will regret. Sometime bashing a person can bring more notoriety and interest and defeat the purpose of the attack (which is to silence him). Already Jones is claiming that 5.6 million new people have signed up for his internet newsletter and podcast since the blacklisting attack began. It’s free so that is certainly possible. But there is another backlash trend that prove Jones is gaining a lot of interest from the general public. As Breitbart reported,

InfoWars has become the number one trending app on the Google Play Store, following the mass purge of Infowars and Alex Jones from Big Tech platforms including Google’s YouTube, Facebook, and many others. The app is currently at the top of Google Play Store’s trending list, beating all mainstream media outlets.

The Apple version of its App is also currently at number three on Apple’s App Store most popular news app chart, behind Twitter and News Break. In the U.K., Infowars is at number four on the App Store’s free news chart, beating Sky News, Mail Online, the Sun, the Guardian, BuzzFeed, and the Telegraph. In Canada, Infowars is at number three under the same chart, just behind Twitter and Reddit.

On Tuesday, Infowars was the fourth most popular free app on the App Store, overtaking CNN, which prompted CNN to lobby for the app’s removal.

Whether you like Alex or not, he is the loudest and most prolific voice for conspiracy out there and has millions of followers. He’s been responsible for bringing millions of people to an understanding of various aspects of conspiracy. Sometimes he gets it wrong, making himself an easy target, but believe me, the PTB wouldn’t be after him with a vengeance if they didn’t know he was effective at exposing a lot of conservatives to conspiratorial issues.

So I have to give Alex credit for casting a wide net, even if it turns some people off. Once exposed to conspiracy talk, those sensitive to tough truths are then free to seek out other opinions. But at least he gets people thinking. My many appearances on his show have helped me get exposure to millions that I would not otherwise have, and many viewers have crossed over to the World Affairs Brief in order to gain access to what many consider more carefully drawn conclusions about conspiracy.

- Joel Skousen
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 08/18/2018 10:56 PM

Mozilla / Firefox goes all in for EVIL… pushes corporate news collusion to silence independent media

08/15/2018 / By Mike Adams

Remember the day you found out Google was steeped in pure evil? So you sought out a different browser to escape the evil overlords that run Chrome.

Many of us sought out Firefox from Mozilla, an organization with a strong history supporting free speech and open access to information.

But now Mozilla has joined the dark side. They’re jumping in bed with pure evil, pushing an “Information Trust Initiative” that would block independent media sources at the browser level while favoring corporate media giants like CNN, a cesspool of deliberately fake news.

Surprised? You shouldn’t be. The Mozilla Foundation also pushed for so-called “net neutrality,” a total sham agenda that the tech giants was crucial to make sure you would never be blocked from the information sources you wanted to visit. But today, it’s abundantly clear that tech giants simply de-platform anyone they want, instantly blocking that channel from all users, all while making a mockery of their “net neutrality” plea.

So which browsers are better alternatives? There are at least two good ones to check out right now:

BRAVE – Run by a pro-freedom group that supports small, independent publishers (and even has a mechanism for micropayments).

Vivaldi – Run by a small, independent group with no ties to deep state funding or the NSA.

It’s time to dump Firefox. Like all the other tech giants, Mozilla is going to abuse and exploit its position of market dominance to control what you read, watch and hear. That’s pure evil, and it’s the kind of evil we’ve all now come to expect from Google, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Now you can add Mozilla to that list.

Watch and learn more, courtesy of, the video platform built by patriots to protect free speech.
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 09/12/2018 03:17 PM

The Arizona Attorney General is inv...recording the location of Android users.

Multiple outlets are reporting Arizona's Attorney General has opened an investigation into Google's alleged practice of recording its Android users' location data.

In a public filing submitted by the Arizona Attorney General's office in August, the investigation would look into if Google tracked and stored its customers' location data, even if the user turned off those settings. If that's the case, it could've possibly violated the Consumer Fraud Act.

Under state law, Arizona can go after businesses that deceive customers, fining them as much $10,000 per violation.

The filing came a week after the Associated Press published its investigation into how Google's services on Android devices and iPhones store users' location data even if they've opted out of being tracked in its privacy settings.

Google responded to AP's piece, saying it offers “clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls so people can turn them on or off, and delete their histories at any time."

Onward and upward,
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 09/12/2018 10:21 PM

If people understood how dangerous anything google or facebook is they'd run like hell. And, that includes chrome, gmail maps etc.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 10/28/2018 08:26 PM

Facebook Censorship Of Alternative Media “Just The Beginning,” Warns Top Neocon Insider

"We are just starting to push back."

By Max Blumenthal and Jeb Sprague | Sunday, October 28, 2018

At a Berlin security conference, hardline neocon Jamie Fly appeared to claim some credit for the recent coordinated purge of alternative media…

This October, Facebook and Twitter deleted the accounts of hundreds of users, including many alternative media outlets maintained by American users. Among those wiped out in the coordinated purge were popular sites that scrutinized police brutality and U.S. interventionism, like The Free Thought Project, Anti-Media, and Cop Block, along with the pages of journalists like Rachel Blevins.

Facebook claimed that these pages had “broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.” However, sites like The Free Thought Project were verified by Facebook and widely recognized as legitimate sources of news and opinion. John Vibes, an independent reporter who contributed to Free Thought, accused Facebook of “favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices.”

In comments published here for the first time, a neoconservative Washington insider has apparently claimed a degree of credit for the recent purge — and promised more takedowns in the near future.

“Russia, China, and other foreign states take advantage of our open political system,” remarked Jamie Fly, a senior fellow and director of the Asia program at the influential think tank the German Marshall Fund, which is funded by the U.S. government and NATO.

“They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning.”

Fly went on to complain that “all you need is an email” to set up a Facebook or Twitter account, lamenting the sites’ accessibility to members of the general public. He predicted a long struggle on a global scale to fix the situation, and pointed out that to do so would require constant vigilance.

Fly made these stunning comments to Jeb Sprague, who is a visiting faculty member in sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara and co-author of this article. The two spoke during a lunch break at a conference on Asian security organized by the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin, Germany.

In the tweet below, Fly is the third person from the left who appears seated at the table.

A rare opportunity to discuss Asian security in Berlin, with an excellent group of experts from the region @SWPBerlin

— Garima Mohan (@GarimaMo) October 15, 2018

The remarks by Fly — “we are just starting to push back” — seemed to confirm the worst fears of the alternative online media community. If he was to be believed, the latest purge was motivated by politics, not spam prevention, and was driven by powerful interests hostile to dissident views, particularly where American state violence is concerned.
Jamie Fly, rise of a neocon cadre

Jamie Fly is an influential foreign policy hardliner who has spent the last year lobbying for the censorship of “fringe views” on social media.Over the years, he has advocated for a military assault on Iran, a regime change war on Syria, and hiking military spending to unprecedented levels. He is the embodiment of a neoconservative cadre.

Like so many second-generation neocons, Fly entered government by burrowing into mid-level positions in George W. Bush’s National Security Council and Department of Defense.

In 2009, he was appointed director of the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a rebranded version of Bill Kristol’s Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. The latter outfit was an umbrella group of neoconservative activists that first made the case for an invasion of Iraq as part of a wider project of regime change in countries that resisted Washington’s sphere of influence.

By 2011, Fly was advancing the next phase in PNAC’s blueprint by clamoring for military strikes on Iran. “More diplomacy is not an adequate response,” he argued. A year later, Fly urged the US to “expand its list of targets beyond the [Iranian] nuclear program to key command and control elements of the Republican Guard and the intelligence ministry, and facilities associated with other key government officials.”

Fly soon found his way into the senate office of Marco Rubio, a neoconservative pet project, assuming a role as his top foreign policy advisor. Amongst other interventionist initiatives, Rubio has taken the lead in promoting harsh economic sanctions targeting Venezuela, even advocating for a U.S. military assault on the country. When Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign floundered amid a mass revolt of the Republican Party’s middle American base against the party establishment, Fly was forced to cast about for new opportunities.

He found them in the paranoid atmosphere of Russiagate that formed soon after Donald Trump’s shock election victory.
PropOrNot sparks the alternative media panic

A journalistic insider’s account of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, Shattered, revealed that “in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss.” Her top advisers were summoned the following day, according to the book, “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up … Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Less than three weeks after Clinton’s defeat, the Washington Post’s Craig Timberg published a dubiously sourced report headlined, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news.’” The article hyped up a McCarthyite effort by a shadowy, anonymously run organization called PropOrNot to blacklist some 200 American media outlets as Russian “online propaganda.”

The alternative media outfits on the PropOrNot blacklist included some of those recently purged by Facebook and Twitter, such as The Free Thought Project and Anti-Media. Among the criteria PropOrNot identified as signs of Russian propaganda were “Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone” and “Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad.” PropOrNot called for “formal investigations by the U.S. government” into the outlets it had blacklisted.

According to Craig Timberg, the Washington Post correspondent who uncritically promoted the media suppression initiative, Propornot was established by “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” Timberg quoted a figure associated with the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, Andrew Weisburd, and cited a report he wrote with his colleague, Clint Watts, on Russian meddling.

Timberg’s piece on PropOrNot was promoted widely by former top Clinton staffers and celebrated by ex-Obama White House aide Dan Pfeiffer as “the biggest story in the world.” But after a wave of stinging criticism, including in the pages of the New Yorker, the article was amended with an editor’s note stating, “The [Washington] Post… does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”

PropOrNot had been seemingly exposed as a McCarthyite sham, but the concept behind it — exposing online American media outlets as vehicles for Kremlin “active measures” — continued to flourish.
The birth of the Russian bot tracker — with U.S. government money

By August, a new, and seemingly related initiative appeared out of the blue, this time with backing from a bipartisan coalition of Democratic foreign policy hands and neocon Never Trumpers in Washington. Called the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), the outfit aimed to expose how supposed Russian Twitter bots were infecting American political discourse with divisive narratives. It featured a daily “Hamilton 68” online dashboard that highlighted the supposed bot activity with easily digestible charts. Conveniently, the site avoided naming any of the digital Kremlin influence accounts it claimed to be tracking.

The initiative was immediately endorsed by John Podesta, the founder of the Democratic Party think tank the Center for American Progress, and former chief of staff of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the Atlantic’s chief Russiagate correspondent, promoted the bot tracker as “a very cool tool.”

Unlike PropOrNot, the ASD was sponsored by one of the most respected think tanks in Washington, the German Marshall Fund, which had been founded in 1972 to nurture the special relationship between the US and what was then West Germany.

The German Marshall Fund is substantially funded by Western governments, and largely reflects their foreign-policy interests. Its top two financial sponsors, at more than $1 million per year each, are the U.S. government’s soft-power arm the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the German Foreign Office (known in German as the Auswärtiges Amt). The U.S. State Department also provides more than half a million dollars per year, as do the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and the foreign affairs ministries of Sweden and Norway. It likewise receives at least a quarter of a million dollars per year from NATO.

The US government and NATO are top donors to the German Marshall Fund

Though the German Marshall Fund did not name the donors that specifically sponsored its Alliance for Securing Democracy initiative, it hosts a who’s who of bipartisan national-security hardliners on the ASD’s advisory council, providing the endeavor with the patina of credibility. They range from neocon movement icon Bill Kristol to former Clinton foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan and ex-CIA director Michael Morell.

Jamie Fly, a German Marshall Fund fellow and Asia specialist, emerged as one of the most prolific promoters of the new Russian bot tracker in the media. Together with Laura Rosenberger, a former foreign policy aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Fly appeared in a series of interviews and co-authored several op-eds emphasizing the need for a massive social media crackdown.

During a March 2018 interview on C-Span, Fly complained that “Russian accounts” were “trying to promote certain messages, amplify certain content, raise fringe views, pit Americans against each other, and we need to deal with this ongoing problem and find ways through the government, through tech companies, through broader society to tackle this issue.”

Yet few of the sites on PropOrNot’s blacklist, and none of the alternative sites that were erased in the recent Facebook purge that Fly and his colleagues take apparent credit for, were Russian accounts. Perhaps the only infraction they could have been accused of was publishing views that Fly and his cohorts saw as “fringe.”

What’s more, the ASD has been forced to admit that the mass of Twitter accounts it initially identified as “Russian bots” were not necessarily bots — and may not have been Russian either.
“I’m not convinced on this bot thing”

A November 2017 investigation by Max Blumenthal, a co-author of this article, found that the ASD’s Hamilton 68 dashboard was the creation of “a collection of cranks, counterterror retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus.”

These figures included the same George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security fellows — Andrew Weisburd and Clint Watts — that were cited as experts in the Washington Post’s article promoting PropOrNot.

Weisburd, who has been described as one of the brains behind the Hamilton 68 dashboard, once maintained a one-man, anti-Palestinian web monitoring initiative that specialized in doxxing left-wing activists, Muslims and anyone he considered “anti-American.” More recently, he has taken to Twitter to spout off murderous and homophobic fantasies about Glenn Greenwald, the editor of the Intercept — a publication the ASD flagged without explanation as a vehicle for Russian influence operations.

Watts, for his part, has testified before Congress on several occasions to call on the government to “quell information rebellions” with censorious measures including “nutritional labels” for online media. He has received fawning publicity from corporate media and been rewarded with a contributor role for NBC on the basis of his supposed expertise in ferreting out Russian disinformation.

Clint Watts has urged Congress to “quell information rebellions”

However, under questioning during a public event by Grayzone contributor Ilias Stathatos, Watts admitted that substantial parts of his testimony were false, and refused to provide evidence to support some of his most colorful claims about malicious Russian bot activity.

In a separate interview with Buzzfeed, Watts appeared to completely disown the Hamilton 68 bot tracker as a legitimate tool. “I’m not convinced on this bot thing,” Watts confessed. He even called the narrative that he helped manufacture “overdone,” and admitted that the accounts Hamilton 68 tracked were not necessarily directed by Russian intelligence actors.

“We don’t even think they’re all commanded in Russia — at all. We think some of them are legitimately passionate people that are just really into promoting Russia,” Watts conceded.

But these stunning admissions did little to slow the momentum of the coming purge.
Enter the Atlantic Council

In his conversation with Sprague, the German Marshall Fund’s Fly stated that he was working with the Atlantic Council in the campaign to purge alternative media from social media platforms like Facebook.

The Atlantic Council is another Washington-based think tank that serves as a gathering point for neoconservatives and liberal interventionists pushing military aggression around the globe. It is funded by NATO and repressive, US-allied governments including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Turkey, as well as by Ukrainian oligarchs like Victor Pynchuk.

This May, Facebook announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) to “identify, expose, and explain disinformation during elections around the world.”

The Atlantic Council’s DFRLab is notorious for its zealous conflation of legitimate online dissent with illicit Russian activity, embracing the same tactics as PropOrNot and the ASD.

Ben Nimmo, a DFRLab fellow who has built his reputation on flushing out online Kremlin influence networks, embarked on an embarrassing witch hunt this year that saw him misidentify several living, breathing individuals as Russian bots or Kremlin “influence accounts.” Nimmo’s victims included Mariam Susli, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert pianist Valentina Lisitsa, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.

In an interview with Sky News, Shilling delivered a memorable tirade against his accusers.

“I have no Kremlin contacts whatsoever; I do not know any Russians, I have no contact with the Russian government or anything to do with them,” he exclaimed.

“I am an ordinary British citizen who happens to do research on the current neocon wars which are going on in Syria at this very moment.”

With the latest Facebook and Twitter purges, ordinary citizens like Shilling are being targeted in the open, and without apology. The mass deletions of alternative media accounts illustrate how national security hardliners from the German Marshall Fund and Atlantic Council (and whoever was behind PropOrNot) have instrumentalized the manufactured panic around Russian interference to generate public support for a wider campaign of media censorship.

In his conversation in Berlin with Sprague, Fly noted with apparent approval that, “Trump is now pointing to Chinese interference in the 2018 election.” As the mantra of foreign interference expands to a new adversarial power, the clampdown on voices of dissent in online media is almost certain to intensify.

As Fly promised, “This is just the beginning.”
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 10/29/2018 02:42 PM

Gab Gets Alex Jones Treatment After CNN Blames It For Synagogue Shooting

Paypal severs ties with Gab but shooter also had accounts on Facebook, Instagram

By Carmine Sabia | Citizen Truth Sunday, October 28, 2018

It has become a new American tradition. A tragedy happens and the race to find someone to blame begins. And since the election of President Donald Trump it has gotten worse.

This past week has been a particularly busy week for those on the left who, as they fight to save the blue trickle that started as a blue wave, want to pin every abhorrent act on the president, his rhetoric and his supporters.

In the past week the United States has experienced three serious attacks that were perpetrated by people with demented political and racial ideologies.

Watch GAB CEO Andrew Torba Infowars interview live:

On Wednesday in Kentucky a white supremacist named Gregory Alan Bush walked into a Kroger’s and shot a black man dead. He then walked into the parking lot and shot and killed a black woman. At one point during the attack he said “whites don’t kill whites,” NBC affiliate WAVE 3 reported.

On Sunday an anti-Semite, 46-year-old Robert Bowers, walked into the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and murdered 11 Jewish worshipers during a baby naming ceremony. Prior to the attack he wrote on his account “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in.”

He reportedly told police “All these Jews need to die,” The Washington Examiner wrote.

And for the majority of the week the nation was gripped as another man, a supporter of the president named Cesar Sayoc, terrorized the nation as he mailed bombs to prominent liberals like George Soros, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Cory Booker, John Brennan and others. When he was caught his van was covered in pro-President Trump stickers.

It could have been a perfect storm for Democrats who want to blame the president for these attacks, but the fact that Sunday’s synagogue shooter despised President Trump destroyed that narrative.

The media scrambled to find someone to blame and it did not take long for them to settle on a Boogeyman. The culprit they settled on was a small social media company named

Gab is a site where free speech, which is an endangered species on the Internet, is protected no matter how vile it is. And here is the uncomfortable part. That is the way it is supposed to be.

When the Founding Fathers of the United States decided that free speech needed to be protected it was not popular speech that they were concerned about. No one wants to ban popular speech.

It is the unpopular speech, the words of a man like Alex Jones who some find scary, that need to be protected. Jones was painted as a man calling for people to be attacked. A dangerous man. But anyone who ever heard Jones or read what he wrote was aware that that was a blatant lie. He just said unpopular things.

He questioned the government, he questioned what has been called the deep state and, yes, he questioned the Sandy Hook massacre. I disagreed with him on that, and on other things, but I did not want him silenced.

I don’t want anyone silenced. That is not what America is about. We talk, we debate, we argue, we shout, and we should thank God every day that we are in a nation that allows it rather than a nation like Saudi Arabia where a dissenting journalist could be found on foreign soil and murdered.

Still CNN was not alone in blaming Gab.

The Daily Beast parroted CNN and called Gab “the Alt-Right’s Favorite Social Network.” The author Will Sommer wrote that the company “marketed itself as a home for extremists kicked off of other social-media platforms.”

That is provably incorrect. Gab markets itself as a place where free speech lives. It follows the free speech guidelines of the Constitution. That is not radical. It is what America is based on.

Hours after the shooting Gab was informed that it had been banned from PayPal. As a site that is funded by users this is an attempt to cripple the company. The same formula that was used to de-person Jones.

BREAKING: is now banned from Paypal “just because.”

—🍂 (@getongab) October 27, 2018

And the attacks continued from all corners all day.

Of *course* he was on @getongab, who is constantly telling me that the platform doesn’t encourage hate speech, and that hate crimes don’t exist.

Blood. Hands.

— Will Carless (@willcarless) October 27, 2018

Gab, which someone in 2016 called “Twitter for Racists”, has been a cesspool of shit for some time. I had to close the account I was using to track these assholes last year because it was getting to be too much.

— Amarnath Amarasingam (@AmarAmarasingam) October 27, 2018

Let’s talk about antisemitism online, shall we?
I am a Jew, not secret about it, and I write about the right. I have for awhile. Here’s some posts about me on the Daily Stormer and Gab and the right-wing net.

— Talia B Lavin (@chick_in_kiev) October 27, 2018

I assumed everyone using Gab was already unstable. Today hasn’t changed my mind.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) October 28, 2018

CNN’s Jake Tapper was particularly concerned with something the shooter wrote on Gab that read “Jews are the children of Satan.”

4/ The NYDN reports that under his Gab profile picture he had written: “Jews are the children of Satan.”

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 27, 2018

But is Tapper or anyone else calling for Twitter to be closed when they have allowed Louis Farrakhan and this tweet to stay on its platform?

Thoroughly and completely unmasking the Satanic Jew and the Synagogue of Satan.

Full Video:

— MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) June 7, 2018

Gab released a statement in the aftermath of the shooting that read “’s policy on terrorism and violence have always been very clear: we a have zero tolerance for it. Gab unequivocally disavows and condemns all acts of terrorism and violence. This has always been our policy. We are saddened and disgusted by the news of violence in Pittsburgh and are keeping the families and friends of all victims in our thoughts and prayers.”

It addressed the media attacks by saying “We refuse to be defined by the media’s narratives about Gab and our community. Gab’s mission is very simple: to defend free expression and individual liberty online for all people. Social media often brings out the best and the worst of humanity. From live streamed murders on Facebook, to threats of violence by bombing suspect Cesar Sayoc Jr. that went unaddressed by Twitter, and more. Criminals and criminal behavior exist on every social media platform.”

Gab said it has been working extensively with law enforcement in the aftermath of the shooting.

But none of that matters. Gab’s hosting provider informed them on Saturday that they are removing their website likely causing the website to be out of commission for weeks.

“Breaking: @joyent, Gab’s new hosting provider, has just pulled our hosting service. They have given us until 9am on Monday to find a solution. Gab will likely be down for weeks because of this. Working on solutions. We will never give up on defending free speech for all people,” the company wrote on Twitter.

Breaking: @joyent, Gab’s new hosting provider, has just pulled our hosting service. They have given us until 9am on Monday to find a solution. Gab will likely be down for weeks because of this. Working on solutions. We will never give up on defending free speech for all people.

—🍂 (@getongab) October 28, 2018

If that does not scare you it should. This is not a war to save Gab or Alex Jones. It is a war to protect free speech. The concept of “hate speech” is subjective and could be used to ban speech that people disagree with. Anyone calling for the banning of speech simple does not get it.

It started with Jones and has now extended to Gab. Big tech is testing the waters to see how much banning you, the people, will allow. The answer you give them will determine the future of free speech.

This hard-hitting report credited to
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 03/26/2019 03:28 PM

Phase Three of the Internet Censorship War

James Wesley Rawles March 26, 2019

Back in October of 2017, I wrote this article: Internet Censorship is Now Rampant — It is High Time to Bookmark Your Alternatives. That was back in what I now refer to as Phase One of the Internet censorship war. I didn’t know it then, but that was back when the censorship campaign was still fairly mild and relatively subtle. Then, in early August of 2018, Alex Jones was systematically banned by more than 10 social media services and sites. Eventually, even Twitter jumped on the “Ban Alex” Band Wagon. When the Alex Jones mass banning was reported in the mainstream press, they made it sound like it was an independent decision made by Apple, and that the various social media then merely followed suit. But I suspect there was a meeting of many of those corporate leaders that took place in advance. (That meeting was probably in cyberspace, but it might have looked a lot like this one.)

In my estimation, the blacklisting of Alex Jones was just a just trial balloon. Once they saw that Jones was banned without too much of a fuss, it was the turning point. Thus began Phase Two: Overt Censorship. As Phase Two got underway, at least 10 other outspoken conservatives were similarly given “strikes”, or blacklisted, or outright banned. They included: Kris Paronto, Laura Loomer, Jesse Kelly, Candace Owens, actor James Woods, Gavin McInnes, Libertarian comedian Owen Benjamin, and street artist “Sabo”. Even left-wing feminist Meghan Murphy was banned, ostensibly for the quasi-conservative “crime” of “misgendering”. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the same has been done to Paul Joseph Watson, Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad), Milo Yiannopoulos, Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon), and several others. These censorship campaigns became so overt that a partial list of Twitter bans was documented at the ultra-leftist Wikipedia. Despite repeated attempts, the cabals couldn’t make that wiki page go away.

In Recent News

Most recently, we read: Facebook Now Automatically Blocks articles. But then, just two days later: Facebook Reverses Zero Hedge Ban, Says It Made A “Mistake”. Hmmm… A mistake? I think that Facebook just got called out for censoring a little too hard, and a little too fast. Also in March of 2019, the left is again attempting to blacklist Tucker Carlson. (This smear campaign began in late 2018.) And following the recent massacre at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Dissenter web page commenting plug-in has been banned in New Zealand. And just in the past few days: Twitter Bans User For Laughing At Rachel Maddow’s Tears Of Despair Over Mueller Report.

I’ll venture to make a prediction: As we get closer to November of 2020, the Internet’s censorious overlords will become less apologetic. Feeling secure in their near-monopolistic ivory towers, they will redouble their campaign to silence dissenters. They will attempt to blacklist not just “fringe” journalists, but move up the chain to attack more mainstream reporters who hold conservative views. Tucker Carlson was just one of their first targets.

It has also been reported that Internet payments giant PayPal has become an overt censor. Take a few minutes to read this: PayPal’s corporate censorship. Also in the past year, JPMorgan Chasebank began closing accounts of gun makers and sellers, as well as a few outspoken conservatives. A similar anti-gun strategy is reportedly in operation at CitiBank. And at least a half dozen banks have cut any ties to the National Rife Association (NRA). And even the nominally “neutral” Patreon has taken sides and cancelled the account of Sargon of Akkad for something he said at a third party site.

And of course we’ve already documented the insidious censorship that now infests YouTube.

Censorship is the New Normal

Outright censorship of the Internet–particularly in the social media sphere, in Wikipedia, and on YouTube–has become the new normal. That is an irrefutable fact. I believe that this is all part of a calculated, coordinated, and comprehensive plan by tech moguls, in coordination with mass media executives. The tech platforms are using Artificial Intelligence and carefully crafted algorithms for censorship. It is now clear that their intent is to systematically discredit, de-monetize, de-rank, disrupt, de-platform, demonize, and delete content from anyone with views that don’t match their own.

Who are their targets? Here is just a sampling:

Gun Ownership Advocates
Police Accountability Advocates
Privacy Advocates
Investigative Reporters
Anti-Immigration Advocates
Anti-Vaccination Advocates

Coming Soon: Phase Three

I fully expect the Internet censorship campaign to go into high gear in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. That will likely be the beginning of Phase Three, or what should be called: “By Whatever Means Necessary” Censorship. I predict that in this phase, the leftist cabals will use every conceivable arrow in their quivers, to include (but not limited to):

Even more overt censorship/banning/blacklisting
Even more overt de-platforming and demonetizing
Orchestrated street protests
A tidal wave of lawsuits
SWATing. (Beware: This can get ugly.)
Contrived congressional committee investigations, with umpteen subpoenas
Malicious Red Flag/ERPO Reports — “Red Flagging” of gun owners
Banks and credit card processors cancelling accounts
Cyber Attacks (DDOS attacks, viruses, worms, and Trojan horses)
Litigation at various court levels
Faked, spoofed, or over-reported “Hate Crimes”
Various contrivances and provocations
Faked or skewed polls
Denigration of independent media and citizen journalists
Planned public humiliation incidents
Studio buildings occupied by various protestors and “student activists”

All in all, these tactics will make life a living hell for their political opponents.

And Phase Four?

And what if the Democrats eventually gain control of the White House and both the U.S. House and Senate? At that point we may witness Phase Four, or Scorched Earth Censorship. Thankfully, we are not there, yet. But I can foresee that this could include:

Planting fake evidence of crimes on cell phones and computers
Arson or other physical attacks on servers or studio buildings.
Summary seizure of smartphones and their contents, without a court order
Murders made to look like natural causes (the Andrew Breibart treatment)
Murders made to look like street crimes (the Seth Rich treatment)
Murders made to look like suicides (the Vince Foster treatment)
Murders made to look like traffic accidents (the Oswaldo Payá treatment)
False flag mass shootings, terrorism, or other attacks
Rendition (extradition) of outspoken Americans for prosecution overseas for “hate crimes”
Rendition (extradition) of outspoken expatriate Americans back to the U.S.
Outspoken critics being labelled “mentally ill’, and confined to mental institutions.
A Chinese-style personal Social Credit Score system
Selective prosecution and incarceration of political opponents.

Beware, folks! Mainstream social media is now doing their best to twist reality. So please seek alternatives like FreeZoxeeFriends, Dissenter, and

Do not expect support for righteous people to come from the Republican Party. It has been co-opted by the RINOs. And there are now just a handful of conservatives left in the Democrat Party. Pray for good government.

Bloggers in Their Crosshairs

I can foresee that bloggers video bloggers (vloggers) will be at particular risk. We are small, vulnerable targets. I say “vulnerable” because we don’t have deep pockets. Nor do we have attorneys on annual retainers, like the big media. Even independent blog sites–with independent domain names, some proprietary posting tools, and dedicated offshore servers–are at risk of censorship. My fellow bloggers have already suffered numerous DDOS attacks, manipulated Google ranking algorithms, and shadow banning. It is safe to assume that as the censorship war continues to escalate, a cut-off of funding via PayPal and/or Amazon Associates account may be next. Pray hard.

Oh, and get a VPN service. – JWR
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/02/2019 08:14 PM

515 news outlets targeted for blacklist, including WND, Drudge

'Crusade against those who hold unacceptable opinions'

The non-profit journalism group the Poynter Institute published a list of 515 media sites – including WND, Breitbart News and Drudge – that it wants blacklisted and shut down.

Poynter claims on its “About” page that “it champions freedom of expression,” noted Breitbart News Editor-at-Large John Nolte.

But it describes its list as an “index of unreliable news sites” and calls for advertisers to put the sites out of business.

Facebook, as WND reported, commissioned Poynter to approve the organizations it uses to fact check “fake news,” which include the Associated Press,, PolitiFact and Snopes.

Poynter, in its introduction of its “UnNews index,” hopes the list will be “useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.”

“Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging – but too often, they have little choice in the matter,” says Poynter.

“Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.

“Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.”

Nolte called Poynter’s list “straight-up McCarthyism.”

“This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s’ blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable, and unapproved opinions,” he wrote.

Single source

He pointed out that most of the list cites a single source, OpenSources, which is curated by an assistant professor from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars.

WND previously reported Zimdars is a 30-something self-identified feminist and activist who has expressed great dislike for President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence.
Merrimack College assistant professor Melissa Zimdars, author of the "fake news" list circulated online (Photo: Twitter)

Merrimack College assistant professor Melissa Zimdars, author of the “fake news” list circulated online (Photo: Twitter)

Nolte noted she’s the author of academic papers such as “Watching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the ‘Obesity Epidemic'” and “Having It Both Ways: ‘Two and a Half Men,’ ‘Entourage’ and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.”

OpenSources has no explanation of her methodology.

In an interview two years ago, she said one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is “hate,” based on the judgment of the discredited, far-left Southern Poverty Law Center.

‘Relentlessly and deliberately misled’

Among the other groups on the Poynter blacklist are Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, the Washington Free Beacon and the Daily Caller.

Nolte argued it’s outlets such as CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico and BuzzFeed that should be held accountable for “relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day.”

Among the big blunders, he said, are coverage of the Trayvon Martin assault, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” Russia collusion, the Brett Kavanaugh serial rapist claim and the charges of racism against the Covington High School boys.

He pointed out it was Breitbart and other news outlets on Poynter’s blacklist that got those stories right, in contrast to establishment media.
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/02/2019 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by ConSigCor
515 news outlets targeted for blacklist, including WND, Drudge

The Daily Signal, among others, is not taking this lying down.

...We’re sharing the story of a Border Patrol agent whose own dad came here illegally and yet still believes it’s important to keep the border secure. We’re reporting on abortion survivors, whose amazing tales belie the left’s lies that babies don’t need guaranteed medical treatment after they survive. We’re telling the incredible tale of a man who went from transgender to nonbinary to identifying as a man again—a story whose conclusion the mainstream media wouldn’t touch, despite covering his earlier transitions […] If you don’t like The Daily Signal because you don’t believe in free speech or you think conservatives should be silent or you just don’t want certain stories told or it makes you upset that we call unborn babies “babies” instead of “fetuses,” fine. It’s a free country. But to smear us as engaging in dishonest journalism is well … dishonest journalism....

Read the whole thing at the link. Personally, I don't think WND, Drudge, or any of the other 515 or so websites mentioned, have much to worry about.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/02/2019 11:18 PM

As Matt Bracken, Sam Culper and others have repeatedly pointed out...we are already engaged in a low intensity conflict that will continue to escalate.

The left already controls the media and academia. They are indoctrinating the public and our children with their socialist bullshit and doing everything in their power to silence any and all criticism or debate. A mere handful of leftist corporations now control your ability to communicate. To make matters worse their "free services" are nothing more than spyware that is being used to prevent groups or people they don't like from conducting legitimate business transactions.

World Net Daily is on the verge of going under because of this.

This must NOT be allowed to continue. It is time the right puts it's foot down hard.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/06/2019 04:05 PM

‘Dystopian Approach’: SEC Gives Blessing To MasterCard’s Idea Of Cutting Off Customers With Right-Wing Views

News Editor
May 6th, 2019
Natural News

Blocking payments to individuals or groups by financial service firms impedes freedom of speech in a free society, journalist Ben Swann has told RT, following reports that MasterCard is allegedly on course to censor the far-right.

The New York-based firm is reportedly being forced by left-leaning liberal activists to set up an internal “human rights committee” that would monitor payments to “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists.”

“The problem is that everyone has their own views and, in a free society, the idea of a free society is that you are free to have your belief systems, as long as you’re not harming anyone else physically,” Swann told RT America. “But your belief system belongs to you and you have the right be wrong. White supremacists have the right to be wrong.”

MasterCard is not the only holder of purse-strings that is mulling the selective banning of individuals from their services and funds. Patreon and PayPal have previously barred individuals from receiving payments using their platforms, due to their extreme views.

But unlike crowdfunding platforms, being cut off from one of the leading American multinational financial services corporations will, most likely, have a much greater impact on the financial stability of an individual or a group, especially after the US Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly blessed MasterCard’s undertaking. By doing this, Swann believes the government granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”

The issue with such an approach, the investigative journalist argues, would lead to a wider crackdown on financial payments to anyone who the government would see as unfavorable.

“The fact that the SEC has given a green light to this essentially says the SEC supports the idea of censoring these groups in order to freeze out essentially anyone you don’t agree with,” the journalist said.

“It is such a dystopian 1984 world view and yet we’re living through it right now,” the journalist observed.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/06/2019 05:21 PM

Forget Facebook, They Want to Revoke Your Access to Banking

Social media deplatforming is only the beginning; The ultimate social credit score nightmare is coming

By Paul Joseph Watson | INFOWARS.COM Monday, May 06, 2019

The biggest threat that social media censorship poses is not you being unable to access Facebook or Twitter, it’s you not being able to get a mortgage or have a bank account.

The end result of Big Tech silencing conservative voices is banks and corporations removing your access to the marketplace and severely restricting your basic right to buy and sell.

We have already seen numerous instances of people being deplatformed by BANKS for the political opinions, from Mastercard telling Patreon to remove Robert Spencer’s account, to Martina Markota and Enrique Tarrio having services terminated by Chase Bank over their support for Trump.

Mastercard also recently indicated that it would hold a vote on whether to cut off payments to “global far-right political leaders”. But this will extend to everyone. Mastercard will ‘monitor’ your financial activity for indications of dissident behavior. That’s chilling.

Before Infowars was banned by Paypal and numerous other payment processors last year, despite having an impeccable credit score, the company was slapped with a designation akin to having ties to terrorism, making banks averse to doing any business with Infowars.

Payment processors and banks are now using similar ‘dangerous person’ designations as Facebook and other Big Tech outfits to not only deplatform, but to designate a person an “extremist” for life.

I was banned by Facebook under the same designation which bans users from the platform who engage in the following behavior;

– Terrorist activity
– Organised hate
– Mass or serial murder
– Human trafficking
– Organised violence or criminal activity

Facebook just put @PrisonPlanet in the same category as terrorists, human traffickers, mob bosses, and serial murderers. This is clown world.

— Jeff Giesea🌿 (@jeffgiesea) 2 May 2019

Once marked as an “extremist,” this designation is then intended to apply to every other area of your life.

This is the ultimate nightmare scenario – a Communist Chinese-style social credit system where you will be denied banking, loans and given poor credit rating if you associate with people or espouse views deemed “dangerous” by the establishment, which at this point is anything that counters their narrative.

Facebook already announced it will ban people merely for mentioning people like Alex Jones or Gavin McInnes or sharing their content without simultaneously denouncing it. In the near future, AI will make this process instantaneous.

Let that sink in. A giant corporation which controls the new public square is telling its 2.3 billion users what political opinions they must hold in order to be allowed to have free expression.

This is nothing less than one giant digital re-education camp.

The Paypal ban against Infowars was handed down just weeks after George Soros-funded group Right Wing Watch published an article demanding that PayPal terminate its agreement with Infowars for “egregious violations of the platform’s own terms of service.”

With PayPal now buying up global credit card payment processors and moving into conventional banking, we are approaching a time when a handful of corporations will control all banking just as a handful of Silicon Valley giants now control free speech.

What about Bitcoin as an alternative? Facebook is now moving into cryptocurrencies. Imagine a day when Facebook controls virtually all online payment mechanisms but you’re banned from using them because you posted a spicy meme or spoke out against mass immigration.

All of this will only be exaserbated by the fact that we are moving towards a cashless society where hard currency is eliminated. You will be forced to use a credit card and you will only be able to have access to a credit card if your social credit score is good enough.

Banned by Facebook? Punished for sharing an “offensive” opinion on Twitter? Now you’re an “extremist”. Now your social credit score has collapsed. Now your bank informs you services have been terminated. Good luck dumpster diving for tonight’s dinner.

Unless we stop this now, unless Trump takes executive action to halt corporations being able to refuse service based on political beliefs, not only will you be silenced, your life will become a living hell.

So you can live without Facebook or Instagram. Imagine trying to live without access to a loan for a car, a mortgage for a house or a bank account period.

They don’t just want you silenced, they want you destitute. They want you broke and homeless.

They want total compliance and obedience under threat of the complete ruination of your life.
Posted By: Texas Resistance

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/06/2019 07:50 PM

This is outrageous. We must put a stop to it now. We will never surrender to being banned due to our conservative views like the Chinese have. The socialist globalist democrats are doing this because alternative internet media woke people up and got Trump elected and can get him re-elected. Now the globalist democrats are desperate. We must fight them on this issue now and win or we will never get an anti-globalist president elected again. They are the haters with their mass murder of un-born babies not us.
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/06/2019 08:35 PM

For the past day or so, I've been posting links to some of the people on the Facebook ban list on FB. They haven't disabled the links or banned me yet. A lot of other people besides me seem to be engaging in this protest. If they ever do anything, I'll let you know.

(If you see some of my links and wonder why I'm linking to those people, it's not because I like them. It's just because I don't think Facebook should be banning them.)

Onward and upward,
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 05/07/2019 12:10 AM

The Poynter Institutes (now retracted) list of 515 unreliable news sites was written by a SPLC podcast producer. In other words, the list of unreliable news sites was unreliable.

Last week, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism and research organization, published a list of 500 unreliable new websites. But the list, which included many conservative news and think tank websites, was itself unreliable, and Poynter has since retracted it.

"Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others," explained Poynter editor Barbara Allen in a statement. "We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology. We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report."

How exactly the list found its way onto the Poynter website in the first place is a bit of a mystery. Poynter confirmed that its author, Barrett Golding, is a freelancer rather than an employee, but did not answer other questions about the process of greenlighting this project.

Golding's LinkedIn account lists him as a freelance podcast producer for the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC did not respond to my questions about whether other SPLC staff had any influence or involvement over the list. Golding did not immediately respond to my request for comment, either. According to his Twitter feed, he works with the SPLC's "Teaching Tolerance" project. He was formerly a research fellow at the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute and a producer for NPR.

It's worth trying to understand these connections because Poynter's retracted list of news sites list was shoddy and overly broad in a manner reminiscent of the SPLC's own work on tracking hate groups. As I explained in a recent piece for Reason detailing the group's personnel issues, the SPLC's tallies hate groups in a manner that suggests hate is always rising, even if it's not:

According to the SPLC's hate map, there were more than 1,000 hate groups in the U.S. in 2018—nearly twice as many as existed in 2000. The number has increased every year since 2014.

The map is littered with dots that provide more information on each specific group, and this is where the SPLC gives away the game. Consider a random state—Oklahoma, for example, is home to nine distinct hate groups, by the SPLC's count. Five of them, though, are black nationalist groups: the Nation of Islam, Israel United in Christ, etc. The SPLC counts each chapter of these groups separately, so the Nation of Islam counts as two separate hate groups within Oklahoma (its various chapters in other states are also tallied separately). The map makes no attempt to contextualize all of this—no information is given on the relative size or influence of each group.

Additionally, the SPLC takes a very broad view of what constitutes hate: It considers the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group that defends religious liberty, as an extremist organization. It claims that American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray is a white nationalist.

The Poynter list made similar errors. It included InfoWars (a literal conspiracy site) but also conservative new websites like The Washington Examiner, National Review, and The Washington Free Beacon. These sites get things wrong from to time, but so do mainstream and left-of-center news sources. (Indeed, this entire episode is a prominent example of a mainstream source making a mistake). But those publications are not misleading in the same sense that Alex Jones is misleading.

Poynter has done some good work in the past. Moving forward, it should be more careful about outsourcing its fact-checking to people who work for the SPLC.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 06/06/2019 01:57 PM

YouTube Begins Purging ‘Thousands Of Videos And Channels’ For Advocating ‘Bigoted Ideologies’

Multiple channels were banned in the immediate aftermath of the announcement

By Chris Menahan | Information Liberation Thursday, June 06, 2019

Google-owned YouTube is planning to purge “thousands of videos and channels” which advocate “bigoted ideologies” or “claim Jews secretly control the world,” deny “that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust” took place, “say women are intellectually inferior to men and therefore should be denied certain rights,” or “suggest that the white race is superior to another race.”

Multiple channels were banned in the immediate aftermath of the announcement.

From New York Times, “YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views”:

YouTube announced plans on Wednesday to remove thousands of videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies in an attempt to clean up extremism and hate speech on its popular service.

The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company said in a blog post. The prohibition will also cover videos denying that violent incidents, like the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, took place.

YouTube did not name any specific channels or videos that would be banned.

“It’s our responsibility to protect that, and prevent our platform from being used to incite hatred, harassment, discrimination and violence,” the company said in the blog post.

[…] The kind of content that will be prohibited under YouTube’s new hate speech policies includes videos that claim Jews secretly control the world, those that say women are intellectually inferior to men and therefore should be denied certain rights, or that suggest that the white race is superior to another race, a YouTube spokesman said.

Channels that post some hateful content, but that do not violate YouTube’s rules with the majority of their videos, may receive strikes under YouTube’s three-strike enforcement system, but would not be immediately banned.

In 2014, Nicole Mullen wrote an article called “Can We Stop Pretending Like Abortions Don’t Feel Good?” in which she explains that she gets sexual pleasure from committing abortions on her unborn babies. Alex discusses how this attitude is actually very common on the left.

The company also said that channels that “repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies,” but don’t violate them outright, would be removed from YouTube’s advertising program, which allows channel owners to share in the advertising revenue their videos generate.

In addition to tightening its hate speech rules, YouTube announced it would also tweak its recommendation algorithm, the automated software that shows users videos based on their interests and past viewing habits. This algorithm is responsible for more than 70 percent of overall time spent on YouTube, and has been a major engine for the platform’s growth.

Here’s how YouTube put it on their own blog:

Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.

We recognize some of this content has value to researchers and NGOs looking to understand hate in order to combat it, and we are exploring options to make it available to them in the future. And as always, context matters, so some videos could remain up because they discuss topics like pending legislation, aim to condemn or expose hate, or provide analysis of current events. We will begin enforcing this updated policy today; however, it will take time for our systems to fully ramp up and we’ll be gradually expanding coverage over the next several months.

The Anti-Defamation League praised YouTube’s censorship purge, said they’re working together with Google-owned YouTube and other tech companies “to aggressively counter hate on their platforms” and said this “important step forward … must be followed by many more.”

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to slander.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to incite violence against Jews or other minorities.

More needs to be done to keep #hate off their platform, but this a step in the right direction for @YouTube.

— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) June 5, 2019

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently unveiled similar censorship rules banning all “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism,” though his company said they would still allow other race-based nationalist and separatist movements on their platform.

Facebook had said previously they were against banning white nationalism and white separatism because they felt that under the same rules they’d also have to ban Zionism and black separatism.

Reports are already pouring in of channels being banned.

YouTube has banned black metal musician Varg Vikernes’ channel. For those who don’t know who Varg is, read the whole thing

— Scott Greer (@ScottMGreer) June 5, 2019

Azov Battalion Media banned from Youtube


— Regulus をゝす 🏳️‍🌈⃠ (@RegulusAnon) June 5, 2019

Looks like my YouTube channel was nuked without warning or prior strikes

“Hate speech”

Guess it was imagined, as I never said anything against other groups, just positive things about my heritage

No worries, vids are all saved and I’ll pop back up 😎
I know this is a marathon

— The Great Order (@TheGreatOrderIs) June 5, 2019

YouTube appears to be deleting videos at random based on title only. This was a discussion about the future of a political movement and contained no content that violated YouTube policies.

— J.-François 🐭 Gariépy (@JFGariepy) June 5, 2019

Massive channels like Stephen Crowder’s have been demonetized:

Steven Crowder has been Stripped of Monetization.

But so have other unrelated Journalists.

Carlos Maza and Vox have just gone Scorched earth on ALL Youtubers and Independent Journalists.

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 5, 2019

Send a special thank you to Vox and Carlos Maza.

The purge has just begun and legit journalists are getting stripped

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 5, 2019

New Blog Post! – BREAKING: They Just Shut Me Down – I NEED Your Help Now More Than Ever! : @dandickspft

— Press For Truth (@PressForTruth) June 5, 2019

These monsters are truly merciless.
YouTube shuts of my ability to make ad revenue on my videos. Not the best timing considering the family situation, but I never expected them to be reasonable.

In case you want to support the channel:

— The Golden One (@TheGloriousLion) June 5, 2019

Looks like new YouTube rules have kicked off a new crackdown that goes beyond Steven Crowder. White nationalists James Allsup and “The Golden One” say they’ve also been demonetized, while Gavin McInnes says he’s had a video deleted.

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) June 5, 2019

A video with the title LOVE YOUR PEOPLE was removed. Crazy that loving White people is too much for youtube.

— Jack Green🌲⚡️ (@JackGreenYT) June 5, 2019

A history teacher from the British School of Bucharest was also banned just for having historical videos of Nazi speeches on his channel:

YouTube have banned me for ‘hate speech’, I think due to clips on Nazi policy featuring propaganda speeches by Nazi leaders. I’m devastated to have this claim levelled against me, and frustrated 15yrs of materials for #HistoryTeacher community have ended so abruptly.@TeamYouTube

— Mr Allsop History (@MrAllsopHistory) June 5, 2019

Make no mistake, leftists will be allowed to spew virulent hate without any interruption:

Dear @TeamYouTube will @colbertlateshow be demonetized on YouTube now for saying mean things about fellow YouTuber @realDonaldTrump ??????

— KEEM 🍿 (@KEEMSTAR) June 5, 2019

UPDATE: Holy f**king s**t:

Bahahaha what?!? You mean to tell me Carlos went scorched earth on ALL of Youtube getting legit journalists and creators stripped and all Crowder has to do is remove the one t shirt???

Pure insanity….

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 5, 2019

I assure you, this was planned long before Maza’s little spat, but that idea is just hilarious.


Sorry for the confusion, we were responding to your tweets about the T-shirts. Again, this channel is demonetized due to continued egregious actions that have harmed the broader community. To be reinstated, he will need to address all of the issues with his channel.

— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 5, 2019

UPDATE III: The purge keeps expanding:

My entire YouTube channel has been banned for “Hate Speech” today. Instrumental electronic music is “Hate Speech” now, apparently. #YouTube #Censorship #clownworld

— xurious (@xuriousmusic) June 5, 2019

My tiny youtube channel, that may have had 2k views total, to the extent these things are accurately reported, only had poems. No racial epithets appeared in the poems. In fact, race itself was never mentioned. A reader of Kipling’s Stranger was probably the edgiest.

— MarkBrahmin (@MarkBrahmin) June 5, 2019

#VoxAdpocalypse got my channel with 100k subs demonetized, no reason given.

— Adam Green 🌐 (@Know_More_News) June 5, 2019


The Pharisees, from amongst the multitude, said to him: “Master, rebuke thy disciples”.
To whom he said: “I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.”
Luke 19:40

Logos will Rise, like it or not.


— E. Michael Jones ❌ (@EMichaelJones1) June 5, 2019

YouTube just banned 15 American Renaissance videos, including a few relatively benign ones. #YouTubePurge

— Patrick Casey 🇺🇸 (@PatrickCaseyUSA) June 5, 2019

Hey @YouTube

Tell me how I violated your rules by simply discussing the ACTUAL LAWS that exist in Europe, and how I find them to be a human’s right violation?

Now you can’t even TALK about the laws that deny people their right to believe or disbelieve something lol.

— Angelo John Gage (@AngeloJohnGage) June 5, 2019

A video I did on the dangers of pornography was banned from YouTube. It was already in limited state for over six months. The state wants young men addicted to porn and not having families.

— Bre Faucheux (@Bre_Faucheux) June 5, 2019

Our channel has been deemed as “hateful content” from @TeamYouTube.

— Deep Fat Fried (@Deepfatfriedpod) June 5, 2019

im another victim of the #VoxAdpocalypse

— Sinatra (@Sinatra_Says) June 5, 2019

Youtube demonetized my channel.

— (((Luke Ford))) (@lukeford) June 5, 2019

This is only a one way street.

Hey @YouTube , does Colbert’s video skit of me getting shot violate your standards also or are you only specifically demonetizing conservatives?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 5, 2019
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 06/07/2019 04:31 PM

Here's an exercise 1984-like doublethink. A writer at Slate, saying internet companies should be regulated like broadcast television networks, insists that "Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom to broadcast that speech."

Yes. Yes it does. The only thing worse than private companies regulating speech on their platforms, is the government doing it for them.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 09/05/2019 02:06 PM

YouTube Purged Over 100k Videos And 17k Channels For ‘Hate Speech’ In 3 Mos., Deleted 500m Comments

Google-owned YouTube announced on Tuesday that they've purged over 17,000 channels, 100,000 videos and a whopping 500 million comments in just three months after changing their rules on "hate speech."

By Chris Menahan | Information Liberation Thursday, September 05, 2019

Our ruling oligarchs are desperate to regain control of the narrative.

Google-owned YouTube announced on Tuesday that they’ve purged over 17,000 channels, 100,000 videos and a whopping 500 million comments in just three months after changing their rules on “hate speech.”

They also said they’re using AI to censor people for “hate speech” and automatically remove content before it’s even viewed.

From The Hill, “YouTube says it has removed more than 100K videos under new hate speech rules”:

YouTube said Tuesday that it has removed more than 100,000 videos marked as hate speech under the platform’s new policy against bigoted and supremacist content.

The video-sharing giant said it removed more than 17,000 channels and 100,000 videos for violating its hate speech policy between April and June — the month in which the policy was instituted — a five-time increase in the number of removals in the first three months of the year.

Google-owned YouTube also said it has removed more than 500 million comments for hate speech, double the amount of removals in the first quarter of the year.

“The spikes in removal numbers are in part due to the removal of older comments, videos and channels that were previously permitted,” YouTube wrote in the post.

Note, they banned thousands of people who followed their rules to the letter for violating the new, entirely arbitrary rules they unveiled in June.

A new protected class by @YouTube: those now immune from criticism due to their “immigration status.” In other words, @YouTube is banning speech critical of illegal immigration.

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) June 5, 2019

America has no laws prohibiting “hate speech” and courts have ruled repeatedly that “hate speech” is free speech but that hasn’t stopped Big Tech monopolies from censoring people for their political views using their own made-up “hate speech” definition.

A leftist study released last month called for Big Tech to ban right-wing thought criminals non-stop in a slow and steady fashion rather than in one fell swoop to “avoid inflaming the hive.”

YouTube appears to be following their advice.

I reported on Tuesday how the Trump administration is considering partnering with Google, Amazon and Apple in a proposal which may use data collected from in-home listening devices to rate Americans with a social credit score to determine whether they can own a gun.

The story got picked up by InfoWars and made the top of the Drudge Report on Wednesday:

My article from Tuesday is quoted in the top story at Drudge!

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) September 4, 2019

The “War on Terror” is being replaced with the “War on White Supremacy” as the new excuse to take away Americans’ rights.

Just as the definition of “terrorism” was expanded to push through the PATRIOT Act and spy on all Americans, the definition of a “white supremacist” is being expanded to justify implementing an authoritarian censorship regime and a Chinese-style social credit score to take away the free speech and gun rights of American thought criminals.
According to the leading Democrat 2020 presidential candidates, President Trump is a “white supremacist” and a “white nationalist” and “white nationalists” should have their guns taken under red flag laws and be aggressively prosecuted by the DOJ for their political beliefs.

Today I was asked whether the president is a white supremacist. I said yes.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 8, 2019

We have to recognize the threat of white nationalism. We’ve got to call it out. As President of the United States, my Justice Department would go after white nationalists with full prosecution. #WarrenTownHall

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 19, 2019

Tapper: Do you agree that [Trump is a white supremacist or white nationalist]?

Sanders: “I do. Look. It gives me to pleasure to say this, but I think all of the evidence out there suggests that we have a president who is a racist.”

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) August 4, 2019

When Trump says he wants more immigrants from Nordic countries—but calls African nations shithole countries—it is very clear the president is a white supremacist. This isn’t only offensive to our sensibilities. As we saw in El Paso, it’s killing people in this country right now.

— Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke) August 11, 2019

Kamala Harris Pitches A “Red Flag” Law Targeting White Nationalists

(Just an FYI, conservatards: You’re all White nationalists for purposes of this law.)

— Muh Private Company (@MuhPrivateCo) August 14, 2019

Meanwhile, Trump is busy advocating for red flag laws (and much worse) to disarm his own supporters and the FBI is busy arresting Trump-supporting Marines for threatening antifa.

A 32-year-old former Marine had his guns seized at the direction of the FBI in August after he allegedly said he would kill antifa members in self-defense if “they start killing us.”

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) September 1, 2019

We’re heading into a very dark time period in America and everyone needs to prepare accordingly.

One step everyone can take immediately is to sign up for alt tech sites like BitChute (you can find a list of tons of censored channels here and here) and Gab and ditch Google Chrome and FireFox for Brave or Iridium.

[Linked Image]

The censorship is only going to get worse and now is the time to start building up alternative platforms.

All these Big Tech companies are sacrificing their own reputations and destroying their own platforms in a desperate attempt to shut down the populist-nationalist spirit rising across the West.

It’s not going to work because what is driving this pleb revolt is the failures of prog-globalismand the corruption of our ruling class. Banning everyone from posting on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and labeling all dissenters as “terrorists” is only going to expose the evils of our ruling class even further.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 12/11/2020 05:51 AM

YouTube Says It Will DELETE Videos Claiming 2020 Election Was Fraudulent

By RT Wednesday, December 09, 2020

Though the US Supreme Court is yet to have its final say on the matter, YouTube has announced it will now remove “any piece of content” claiming that the outcome of last month’s presidential election was fraudulent.

Tuesday marked the ‘safe harbor’ deadline for US states to certify their election results. Beyond this date, recounts, audits and lawsuits are generally required to have been performed or filed. President Donald Trump is still counting on a major Supreme Court lawsuit to overturn Joe Biden’s win, but to YouTube, the outcome is set in stone and dissent will no longer be allowed.

“We will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 US Presidential election” the video platform said on Wednesday.

In addition to removing this content, YouTube said it would further boost the reach of “authoritative news” and suppress “problematic misinformation.” The platform has already been doing this since election day, as well as directing viewers to official, government-sanctioned sources of information.

Though the ‘safe harbor’ deadline has passed, the Supreme Court will still hear a mammoth case brought by the state of Texas which claims that Biden’s likelihood of a clean victory was “less than one in a quadrillion,” and that the former vice president’s victories in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were unconstitutional. Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana later signed on to the suit too.

Regardless of the suit’s outcome, pundits and commentators were outraged by the Google-owned company’s explicit censorship. “YouTube will allow you to criticize the government’s handling of coronavirus, but if you criticize the government’s handling of the election your video will now be taken down,” conservative pundit Jack Posobiec wrote, adding wryly, “we live in a free society.”

YouTube’s announcement came after Trump threatened to veto an annual defense spending bill unless it included a termination of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives social media platforms immunity from being sued over the content posted on their sites. Section 230 treats sites as platforms rather than publishers, though following YouTube’s latest announcement, some conservatives argued that forbidding an entire topic of discussion constitutes editorializing, which is not protected under the section.

Aside from election-related censorship, YouTube has also cracked down on “misleading” information about Covid-19, and a wide range of “conspiracy theories.”
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/10/2021 05:00 PM

America has become the soviet union 2.0. When social media companies can ban and deplatform the president of the US, we have a problem. And, if they can do it to him, don't think you're immune.

Trump Reveals He’s ‘Negotiating With Various Other Sites’ After Twitter Ban

Google Blacklists Parler App from Play Store

Mozilla Says ‘Deplatforming’ Trump Not Enough, Wants to Shield Internet from ‘Bad Actors’ as Users Uninstall Firefox in Disgust

Free Speech Platform Gab Reports 750% Increase in Traffic

BREAKING: Amazon Kicks Parler from Web Hosting Services, Platform to Go Offline on Monday

“This Was A Coordinated Attack”: Parler CEO Speaks Out After Amazon Boots From AWS, Vows To Rebuild ‘From Scratch’

ACLU Warns of ‘Unchecked Power’ After Facebook, Twitter Suspend Trump
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/10/2021 09:57 PM

"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good." - Archbishop Charles J. Chaput.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 03:46 PM

Minds next? Google sends ‘24 hour warning’ to free-speech ‘anti-Facebook’ platform, forces changes to app

By RT Saturday, January 16, 2021

The social media platform Minds had to remove ‘major functionality’ from its Android app after getting a chilling warning from Google. Its co-founder said plans for a censorship-resistant infrastructure are in the works.

In a post on Friday evening, Bill Ottman said that Minds had received a “24 hour warning” from the Google Play store. This forced them to submit an updated version of the app, based on “interim solution and ninja developers,” which removed the search, discovery and comments functionality.

“I know. We aren’t happy and will be working towards something better,” Ottman said. “What is happening on the internet with major providers is fueling the cultural divide as much as anything,” he added.

Operating since 2015, Minds was conceived as a blockchain-based community-owned social media platform that would not monetize user data but enable free speech instead. Wired magazine once described it as the “anti-Facebook.”

Ottman advised users to download the app from Minds directly if possible. “If you are on Apple, leave if you’re smart,” he said.

As for going forward, he said a plan for “fully censorship-resistant infrastructure” is coming soon, and that Minds has “multiple escape pods ready to go” if Amazon moves against them.

Ottman’s comments were a clear reference to what happened to Parler. The free-speech social media platform attracted tens of thousands of users purged from Twitter in the wake of the January 6 unrest at the US Capitol – only to be banned from Google and Apple stores, and then taken down from the internet entirely after Amazon Web Services (AWS) denied them access to the cloud. Parler’s executives later revealed that other vendors rushed to jump ship as well, leaving them unable to operate entirely.

Those who complained about the rising tide of censorship have typically been told that the First Amendment to the US Constitution did not apply to private companies and that people should “build their own” platforms if they disagreed. Parler’s shutdown has shown that this is near-impossible when the major players control the internet infrastructure itself, however.

Mainstream media and tech platforms have gone after Parler, Gab, Minds, and Telegram for allegedly having “far-right”users and allowing “hate speech” as content. In Parler’s case, Amazon’s ultimatum demanded moderation policies they would approve of in order to avoid removal from AWS.

In a lawsuit accusing Amazon of breach of contract, antitrust violations and defamation, Parler argued that this was pretextual and revealed that Amazon staff sought to find out if US President Donald Trump – freshly banned from Twitter and locked out of Facebook – had set up an account on the platform.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 03:49 PM

Parler CEO Matze ‘goes into hiding over death threats,’ company says as it seeks to seal employee info in court battle with Amazon

By RT Saturday, January 16, 2021

The CEO of free-speech app Parler has reportedly fled his home due to death threats amid what his lawyers call a “vilification” effort by Amazon. The tech giant accused the platform of allowing violent content before dropping it.

In a court filing on Friday, Parler, embroiled in a legal battle with Amazon over its move to abruptly terminate its relationship with the app, has asked for privacy protections for its employees, alleging that they have been exposed to abuse and a torrent of threats due to Amazon’s much-publicized accusations against the company.

The motion cites Parler CEO John Matze’s declaration that “many Parler employees are suffering harassment and hostility, fear for their safety and that of their families, and in some cases have fled their home state to escape persecution.”

Matze, who recently admitted that Parlier might be waging a losing battle in its bid to go back online, was not an exception, and had to flee fearing for his and his family’s well-being, according to the filing.

Matze himself, as the CEO of the company AWS continues to vilify, has had to leave his home and go into hiding with his family after receiving death threats and invasive personal security breaches.

Citing “the highly charged nature of this public and polarizing dispute” with Amazon, Parler asked the court to seal employees’ personal information, the firm’s correspondence with Amazon, as well as a “screenshot of a tweet from Ashli Babbitt’s account.”

Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was killed by US Capitol Police when a pro-Trump crowd stormed Congress as it gathered to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory on January 6. The riot, which Democrats and part of the Republican establishment have blamed on Trump’s post-election rhetoric, left a total of five people dead.

On Monday, Matze told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that he was afraid to go home due to the avalanche of threats he has been bombarded with following the events of January 6 and after Amazon argued that his company failed to curb hate speech on the platform.

In previous court filings, Parler argued that while the company did face a massive backlog of 26,000 posts that were waiting to be moderated shortly before Amazon severed ties with the site, it was due to an influx of users fleeing Twitter and Facebook in the wake of Trump’s social media bans. Parler insisted that it cleared up the backlog over the next few days, removing “all but some 1,000 problematic posts” by Sunday – but that did not stop Amazon from terminating service that very day.
Posted By: Huskerpatriot

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 04:28 PM

This is a very scary precedent.

What would it take for a conservative (say soon to be ex-President) to set up his own web service facility that was open to free speech minded companies?
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 05:12 PM

Tons of money.
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Huskerpatriot
...What would it take for a conservative (say soon to be ex-President) to set up his own web service facility that was open to free speech minded companies?

What would it take for the government to shut that web service down? Not much.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: Huskerpatriot

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 07:53 PM

I’d think that a government effort to block free speech would have a much harder time passing a judicial review on constitutional grounds. That is assuming the usurped assuming the throne doesn’t pack the court.

Currently they get away with this on the grounds that these are private companies.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 08:59 PM

First, you must locate your servers in another privacy friendly country like Switzerland or Iceland.
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 01/16/2021 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Huskerpatriot
I’d think that a government effort to block free speech would have a much harder time passing a judicial review on constitutional grounds....

That wouldn't be any problem. They would just call it "hate speech," or "insurrection," or something. Occasional Cortex and others are already talking about "reining in" the media. You can bet we'll be hearing more about that.

The First Amendment? It's going the same way the Second is.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: Bigfoot

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 02/28/2021 12:36 PM

Looks like Assault Web may have been nuked, all I get is... Plesk
Web Server's Default Page

This page is generated by Plesk, the leading hosting automation software.
You see this page because there is no Web site at this address.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 02/28/2021 03:57 PM

Several sites are down and at least 2 talk radio hosts have been de platformed this past week. Folks better be making contingency plans.
Posted By: Bigfoot

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 02/28/2021 04:17 PM

Looks like AW made it back. Looks like the war on the 1st amendment is in full swing.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 07/27/2021 01:49 PM

Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, YouTube Expanding Counterterrorism ‘Database’ To Target ‘White Supremacists’
14 major tech companies combining forces to weaponize "counterterrorism" organization's database against conservatives.

By Jamie White | INFOWARS.COM Monday, July 26, 2021

The major tech companies of Silicon Valley announced they will pool their resources into a counterterrorism “database” aimed at cracking down on material from “white supremacists and far-right militias.”

In other words, an Orwellian omnipresent social credit system for Republicans and conservatives.

14 corporations, including Facebook, Microsoft, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, Dropbox, Verizon, and Snapchat, will expand the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database to flag material from “white supremacists and far-right militias.”

Reuters reported that the GIFCT database, created in 2017, was used primarily to collect extremist material from Islamic terror groups, “until now.”

“Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos — often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence — and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism,” Reuters reported.

“It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”

GIFCT Executive Director Nicholas Rasmussen said the tech companies want to expand their counterterrorism and censorship efforts domestically.
Visit our store now before the sale ends!

“Anyone looking at the terrorism or extremism landscape has to appreciate that there are other parts…that are demanding attention right now,” Rasmussen said, suggesting conservatives are the threat.

“Over-achievement in this takes you in the direction of violating someone’s rights on the internet to engage in free expression,” he admitted.

This announcement comes the same day that the ADL, a far-left group, and payment platform PayPal declared a partnership to “fight extremism and hate” groups by “uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines” that support them.

ADL & Paypal Ratioed After Announcing Social Credit Score System to “Fight Extremism and Hate”

"PayPal and ADL will focus on further uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines that support extremist and hate movements."

By Jamie White | INFOWARS.COM Monday, July 26, 2021

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was ridiculed on social media after announcing a partnership with PayPal to “fight extremism and hate” groups by “uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines” that support them.

In other words, a dystopian social credit system policed by a radical far-left organization and a virtue-signaling corporation.

“We’re excited to announce a new partnership with @PayPal to fight extremism and hate. We’ve launched a research effort to understand how extremists leverage financial platforms to fund criminal activity,” the ADL tweeted Monday.

“The initiative with PayPal will be led through ADL’s Center on Extremism, a leading authority on extremism, terrorism and hate,” the ADL website states. “PayPal and ADL will focus on further uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines that support extremist and hate movements. In addition to extremist and anti-government organizations, the initiative will focus on actors and networks spreading and profiting from all forms of hate and bigotry against any community.”

ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt added that his organization and PayPal “have a critical role to play in fighting the spread of extremism and hate.”

“With this new initiative, we’re setting a new standard for companies to bring their expertise to critical social issues,” Greenblatt said. “We have a unique opportunity to further understand how hate spreads and develop key insights that will inform the efforts of the financial industry, law enforcement, and our communities in mitigating extremist threats.”

Likewise, PayPal said its partnership with the ADL will “make a greater impact” to “fight against hate.”

“By identifying partners across sectors with common goals and complementary resources, we can make an even greater impact than any of us could do on our own,” said PayPal’s Chief Risk Officer Aaron Karczmer.

“We are excited to partner with the ADL, other non-profits and law enforcement in our fight against hate in all its forms.”

Notably, the ADL’s bulletin, which has received less than 100 likes as of writing, was heavily ratioed on Twitter.

These users have a good reason to be concerned given the the groups and individuals PayPal and the ADL consider to be “extremist.”

PayPal permanently suspended Infowars in 2018 in lockstep with Big Tech, claiming we “promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions,” a demonstrably false and ludicrous statement.

PayPal also kicked off congressional candidate Laura Loomer in 2019 without providing a reason.

And in May 2021, Paypal permanently banned the account of Canadian news network Rebel News without explanation.

Paypal even suspended the account of Code of Vets, a charity group for struggling veterans.

As we’ve reported, the ADL’s goal isn’t to combat “hate,” but to control the flow of online information through censorship.

Sacha Baron Cohen said as much during an ADL summit in 2019, calling for Big Tech and the ADL to do more to silence “conspiracy theorists” like Alex Jones.

“There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist,” Cohen said. “And if these internet companies really want to make a difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor, work closely with groups like the ADL, insist on facts and purge these lies and conspiracies from their platforms.”

It’s not difficult to see how this initiative is part of a slippery slope toward tyranny akin to Communist China’s social credit score.
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 07/27/2021 04:18 PM

Not too surprising, seeing as how the FBI says we're all terrorists. And if we're not? Why, they'll just fake a kidnapping plot or something and say we're terrorists anyway.

Yeah, we're looking more and more like China every day.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 07/27/2021 04:41 PM

Informal government coercion and the problem of "jawboning." Law professor Genevieve Lakier points out that the informal (but quite effective) practice of government speech suppression, called "jawboning," is really nothing new. Far too long to post here in its entirety, but here's a part of the introduction:

For years now, scholars have expressed alarm at the tendency of government officials to use informal means, rather than democratically enacted laws, to pressure the social media companies to take down what they consider to be harmful or offensive speech. The term commonly used to refer to this kind of informal (but often quite effective) practice of government speech suppression is “jawboning.” While by no means unique to the digital public sphere, jawboning has come to be a particularly common tactic of government regulation of the social media platforms, in part because the government has few other means of regulating what the social media companies do. Scholars have worried, for good reason, that the practice of jawboning allows government officials to evade the stringent constraints on their power to regulate speech imposed by the First Amendment. But relatively little attention has been paid to the constitutional question of whether, or rather when, government jawboning itself violates the First Amendment.

Two recent events have pushed this question to the front page. The first of these events was President Trump’s decision in early July to file class-action lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. These lawsuits accuse the companies of violating Trump and the other class members’ First Amendment rights when they took down, deprioritized, or shadow banned the plaintiffs’ speech. Although the lawsuits have attracted much derision from legal scholars for getting the “First Amendment exactly wrong” by failing to recognize that it applies only to government actors, not private corporations, the core argument the Trump complaints make is not that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are generally bound by the First Amendment but, rather, that the companies “censored” Trump and other class members’ speech because of what the complaints describe as the “overt coercion” of Democratic members of Congress. In other words, the Trump lawsuits make a First Amendment jawboning argument and one that clearly identifies Democratic members of Congress as the agents who were ultimately responsible for the violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights (even though, as is sometimes the case, the complaints name no government officials as defendants).

The second jawboning-related event was the July 15 release by the U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, of a health advisory warning of the perils to the national public health of social media-disseminated misinformation related to the coronavirus. The advisory and accompanying press conference, in which White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced that 12 people were producing 65 percent of the anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms and called on Facebook, in particular, to take “faster action against harmful posts,” generated a vigorous debate about whether the White House’s actions violated the First Amendment rights of Facebook and its users....

Read the whole thing at the link.

Onward and upward,
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 09/30/2021 02:21 AM

YouTube Bans All Anti-Vaxx Activists & Anti-Vaxx Content

"Content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed," company says.

By Jamie White | INFOWARS.COM Wednesday, September 29, 2021

YouTube has announced it’s removing the channels of prominent anti-vaccine activists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Joseph Mercola in a bid to suppress COVID vaccine hesitancy.

The new policies will shift from censoring COVID vaccine “misinformation” to policing content questioning vaccines of any kind.

“As part of a new set of policies aimed at cutting down on anti-vaccine content on the Google-owned site, YouTube will ban any videos that claim that commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous,” the Washington Post reported. “The company previously blocked videos that made those claims about coronavirus vaccines, but not ones for other vaccines like those for measles or chickenpox.”

“Misinformation researchers have for years said the popularity of anti-vaccine content on YouTube was contributing to growing skepticism of lifesaving vaccines in the United States and around the world. Vaccination rates have slowed and about 56 percent of the U.S. population has had two shots, compared with 71 percent in Canada and 67 percent in the United Kingdom. In July, President Biden said social media companies were partially responsible for spreading misinformation about the vaccines, and need to do more to address the issue.”

Google-owned YouTube said in a Wednesday statement it’s specifically targeting channels that claim ANY vaccines can “cause chronic health effects” or could be “dangerous.”

Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them. Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines.

Matt Halprin, YouTube’s vice president of global trust and safety, told the Washington Post about the company’s expansion of censorship.
Now that you're intellectually ahead, stay physically ahead by visiting our store.

“Developing robust policies takes time,” Halprin said. “We wanted to launch a policy that is comprehensive, enforceable with consistency and adequately addresses the challenge.”

“We’ll remove claims that vaccines are dangerous or cause a lot of health effects, that vaccines cause autism, cancer, infertility or contain microchips.”

“At least hundreds” of moderators at YouTube are working specifically on medical misinformation in all available languages, he added.

Kennedy Jr., a lawyer and son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and Mercola, an alternative medicine entrepreneur, are not “anti-vaccine,” they simply point out the documented risks about the treatments are suppressed on behalf of pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, a board-certified osteopathic medical doctor, is also now banned from the video platform.

Ironically, YouTube’s anti-American bid to further suppress all debates about the COVID vaccine – and now ALL vaccines – will only increase suspicion and sow more doubt about vaccines in the future.

According to the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) website, nearly three million injury symptoms from the COVID shots have been recorded worldwide, including 76,160 emergency room visits, 56,912 hospitalizations, 18,098 permanent disabilities, 14,327 life-threatening events, and 13,911 deaths, as of late August.

In fact, deaths alone from the COVID jabs amount to twice the number that have been recorded in VAERS for all vaccines administered over the past 30 years.

These are facts. And YouTube has declared war on them.
Posted By: ConSigCor

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 10/01/2021 01:29 AM

YouTube Deletes Ron Paul Channel Without Warning

"The appeal was automatically rejected," says Paul

By Kit Daniels | INFOWARS.COM Thursday, September 30, 2021

YouTube has deleted a Ron Paul channel without warning, and has even automatically rejected an appeal to reinstate the channel.

The tech giant didn’t even bother to give ‘strikes’ against the channel, and the censorship was all the more obvious given that Paul rarely uploaded videos to the channel.

“Very shocked that YouTube has completely removed the channel of my Ron Paul Institute: no warning, no strikes, no evidence,” the former congressman tweeted. “Only explanation was ‘severe or repeated violations of our community guidelines.’ Channel is rarely used.”

“The appeal was automatically rejected.”

In other words, the rarely-used channel was deleted for engaging in “wrongthink.”

In the past, Infowars has repeated warned that tech giants were trying to push the Internet back into a 1960s television model in which only a handful of outlets (like TV stations) controlled from the top-down are allowed to broadcast to a wide audience.

Anyone who questions establishment narratives will not be allowed to have free-range access and influence over millions.

Recently, the focus of the Ron Paul Institute wasn’t really even on Covid-19 vaccines but rather the totalitarian lockdowns in Australia and other countries, which indicates that Google is now seeking broader control over Internet talking points.

Of course, it’s possible that YouTube will reinstate the channel if Google feels it has taken a step too far, too fast.
Posted By: airforce

Re: The Internet Gulag: - 10/01/2021 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by ConSigCor
YouTube Deletes Ron Paul Channel Without Warning

"The appeal was automatically rejected," says Paul...

YouTube has deleted a Ron Paul channel without warning, and has even automatically rejected an appeal to reinstate the channel....

YouTube reinstated the channel. They said it was a "mistake." Ya think?

...Within three hours of Paul’s original tweet, YouTube replied with confirmation that it had deleted Paul’s account, characterizing it as a mistake and informing him it had been restored.

“Heard back from our team that this was a mistake and your channel has been reinstated,” YouTube tweeted in response to Paul. “Thanks for being patient while we sorted this out – we’ll be reaching out via email shortly in case you have any questions.”

Paul acknowledged the tech company had reinstated the account. Google did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment....

Onward and upward,