By Derrick Broze

As more and more Americans question the practices of tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, the topic of censorship on social media and in search results continues to be a hotly debated topic. Do these companies essentially act as publishers and, if so, should they be regulated as such? Should the government make efforts to break up the tech giants? These questions and more need answering as the public grapples with the reality that “Big Tech” is gaining more control over what we see, hear, and read while surfing the Internet.

Now, more fuel has been added to the fire as the controversial conservative investigative outlet Project Veritas has released leaked documents which show Pinterest blocking links of alternative media websites and search terms related to Christianity and abortion. The apparent blacklist is part of a “porn domain block list” designed to keep the social media platform free of sexually explicit content. Veritas published the internal documents and reportedly interviewed a company insider who claimed Pinterest directly and indirectly censors content related to pro-life and Christian themes, as well as alternative health sites, and several independent news websites known for challenging the U.S. government narrative on a range of topics, including the War on Terror. These sites include ZeroHedge, The Anti-Media, NewsWars (operated by Alex Jones’ Infowars), The PedoGate, Tracking Vaccinations, and Organic Healthy Tips.

Other documents leaked to Project Veritas include a large text file titled “Sensitive Terms List” containing search terms that Pinterest considers “sensitive.” A user searching one of these “sensitive” terms will received modified search results per Pinterest internal policy. The documents note that search terms are assigned an “abusive,” “sensitive,” and “brand unsafe” value. Pinterest employees have the option to either block auto-complete results in the search bar, show the user a warning, or remove the term from recommended or trending feeds. The so-called “Sensitive Terms List” reveals that Christianity-related terms like “christian easter” and “bible verses” were marked as “brand unsafe.”

This is not the first time Pinterest made the news for censoring certain material. In February, the platform also blocked searches related to “anti-vaccination” material.

However, the company is not alone in their efforts to remove unpopular opinions and alternative media from their platforms. One day after Project Veritas’ report, the Daily Caller reported that a whistleblower within Google leaked screenshots of two apparent blacklists of websites which are being scrubbed from the search engine’s results. The Daily Caller reviewed documents and found that employees are instructed to add the line “# REMOVE url” to ensure that a “fringe” website is removed from Google’s “featured snippets” search results. The “featured snippets” feature is responsible for finishing users sentences when they type questions into Google’s search box. The document suggests that the removal of certain websites from featured snippets is being conducted manually by a human employee rather than the result of a mistake by an algorithm or artificial intelligence.

The Caller also reports that a second blacklist, called “all_fringe_domains,” is designed to block websites labeled “fringe.” Some of the websites being blocked include “the American Spectator, Breitbart, Breaking911, the website of pastor Brian Jones, the website of Bring Your Bible to School Day, Consortium News (published by Robert Parry), St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church, speakerryan.com, The Franklin Society (a cryptocurrency blog), Free Thought Project, The Gateway Pundit, and The Gorka Briefing”.

The leaked documents reported on by the Daily Caller and Project Veritas raise a number of questions regarding how much control and influence the Big Tech giants have over public discourse. Even more worrisome is the fact that websites like the Free Thought Project, the Anti-Media, and ZeroHedge have been facing waves of censorship for over a year, with both the Anti-Media and the Free Thought Project being purged from Facebook in October 2018.

American Natural Superfood - Free Sample

By Derrick Broze | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds and Twitter.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

By Tyler Durden

An internal Facebook document reveals that the social media giant monitors its users’ offline behavior as part of how the company determines whether a person should be classified as a “Hate Agent,” according to Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari who has reviewed the document.

Titled “Hate Agent Policy Review,” the document reveals that Facebook employs a series of “signals” which include a person’s behavior both on and off the platform. Once determined to be a “hate agent,” a person is banned from the platform.

If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)

Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category. –Breitbart

Facebook may even brand someone a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public,” according to the report.

This piece by @LibertarianBlue is insane.@Facebook monitors your OFFLINE behavior to decide if you’re a “Hate Agent” via:

— who you were seen with
— comments about immigration
— your tattoos
— if you are NEUTRAL about someone
— things you say IN PRIVATEhttps://t.co/qXnWyRkFOp

— Dennis Williams (@RealDennisWill) June 14, 2019

Bokhari also notes from his previous reports that Facebook categorized right-wing pundit Paul Joseph Watson as “hateful” in part because he interviewed British activist Tommy Robinson on his YouTube channel. Similarly, prominent conservatives Candace Owens and Brigitte Gabriel are on the list, along with UK politicians Marie Waters and Carl Benjamin.

The Benjamin addition reveals that Facebook may categorize you as a hate agent merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful. In the document, Facebook tags Benjamin with a “hate agent” signal for “neutral representation of John Kinsman, member of Proud Boys” on October 21 last year.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || ).push({});

Facebook also accuses Benjamin, a classical liberal and critic of identity politics, as “representing the ideology of an ethnostate” for a post in which he calls out an actual advocate of an ethnostate. –Breitbart

Facebook divides hate speech into three tiers depending on the severity of the offense;

Tier 1 attacks, which target a person or group of people who share one of the above-listed characteristics or immigration status (including all subsets except those described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses), where attack is defined as

Any violent speech or support in written or visual form

Dehumanizing speech such as reference or comparison to:

Insects; Animals that are culturally perceived as intellectually or physically inferior; Filth, bacteria, disease and feces, Sexual predator, Subhumanity, Violent and sexual criminals, Other criminals (including but not limited to “thieves,” “bank robbers,” or saying “all [protected characteristic or quasi-protected characteristic] are ‘criminals’”); Mocking the concept, events or victims of hate crimes even if no real person is depicted in an image.

Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!

Tier 2 attacks, which target a person or group of people who share any of the above-listed characteristics, where attack is defined as; Statements of inferiority or an image implying a person’s or a group’s physical, mental, or moral deficiency; Physical (including but not limited to “deformed,” “undeveloped,” “hideous,” “ugly”); Mental (including but not limited to “retarded,” “cretin,” “low IQ,” “stupid,” “idiot”); Moral (including but not limited to “slutty,” “fraud,” “cheap,” “free riders”); Expressions of contempt or their visual equivalent, including (but not limited to) “I hate”, “I don’t like” , “X are the worst” , Expressions of disgust or their visual equivalent, including (but not limited to), “Gross” , “Vile” , “Disgusting” , Cursing at a person or group of people who share protected characteristics

Tier 3 attacks, which are calls to exclude or segregate a person or group of people based on the above-listed characteristics. We do allow criticism of immigration policies and arguments for restricting those policies.

If you have done any of the above over the past two years, Facebook considers it a ‘hate signal.’

By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge / Report a typo

Image credit: Anthony Freda Art

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

By Patrick Wood

Forget ‘fake news’. Google IS fake news. It is re-writing history, the present and the future. It is using its enormous control over the ‘news feed’ to control how people think, react and act. Worse, it is working beyond their wildest imagination.

We can thank Project Veritas for breaking this story, and I expect there will be additional Google insiders who come out as whistleblowers to reveal more sordid details.

In short, Google is weaponizing its AI programs to decimate all conservative voice in America, and to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected in 2020.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had the opportunity to grill Maggie Stanphill, Director of Google User Experience, on the undercover video of another Google executive and leaked internal documents. Here is a partial transcript:

CRUZ: Are you familiar with the report that was released yesterday from Veritas, that included a whistleblower from within Google that included videos from a senior executive at Google, and it included documents that are reportedly internal powerpoint documents from google.

GOOGLE: Yes I heard about that report in news.

CRUZ: Have you seen the report?

GOOGLE: No I did not.

CRUZ: So you didn’t review the report to prepare fr this meeting?

GOOGLE: It’s been a busy day and I have a day job which is Digital Well-being at Google so I’m trying to make sure…

CRUZ: Well I’m sorry that this meeting is impinging on your day job.

GOOGLE: It’s a great opportunity thank you.

CRUZ: One of the things in that report and I would recommend people interested in political bias at Google watch the entire report and judge for themselves, there’s a video from a woman Jen Gennai, it’s a secret video that was recorded, Jen Gennai as I understand is the head of responsible innovation for google. Are you familiar with Miss Gennai?

GOOGLE:  I work in user experience and I believe that AI group is somebody is somebody that works on AI principles. But it’s a big company and I don’t work directly with Jen.

CRUZ: Do you know her or no?

GOOGLE: I do not know Jen.

CRUZ: As I understand that she is shown in the video saying, and this is a quote, “Elizabeth warren is saying that we should break up google. And like I love her, but she is very misguided. Like that will not make it better. It  will make it worse. Because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that.” Do you think its Google’s job to quote, “prevent the next trump situation?”

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I don’t agree with that. No sir.

CRUZ: So a different individual, a whistleblower identified simply as an insider at Google with knowledge of the algorithm, was quoted on the same report as saying, google is quote “bent on never letting someone like Donald Trump come to power again.” You think its google’s job to make sure quote “somebody like Donald Trump never comes to power again?”

GOOGLE: No sir I don’t think that is Google’s job and we build for everyone including every single religious belief, every single demographic, every single region, and certain every single political affiliation.

CRUZ: Well I have to say that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. Of the senior executives at Google, do you know a single one that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I’m a user experience director and I work on google digital well-being, I can tell you we have diverse use…

CRUZ: Did you know of anyone that voted for Trump.

GOOGLE: I definitely know of people that voted for Trump.

CRUZ: Of the senior executives at Google.

GOOGLE: I don’t talk politics with my workmates.

CRUZ: Is that a no?

GOOGLE: Sorry is that a no to what?

CRUZ: DO you know any senior executives, even a single senior executive at the company that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: as the digital well-being expert I don’t think this is in my purview to comment… I definitely don’t know…

…

CRUZ: Let’s talk about one of the PowerPoints that was leaked. The Veritas report has Google internally saying “I propose we make machine learning intentionally human centered and intervene for fairness.” Is this document accurate?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I don’t know about this document so I don’t know.

CRUZ: Okay I’m going to ask you to respond to the committee in writing afterwards as to whether this PowerPoint and the other documents are included in the veritas report, whether  those are  accurate. And I recognize that your lawyers may want to write explanation, you’re welcome to write all the explanation that you want but I also want a simple clear answer is this an accurate document that was generated by google. Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in this document?

GOOGLE: No sir I do not.

CRUZ: Going to read you another, also in this report, it indicates that Google according this whistleblower, deliberately makes recommendations if someone is searching for conservative commentators, deliberately shifts the recommendations so instead of recommending other conservative commentators it recommends organizations like CNN or MSNBC or left leaning political outlets. Is that occurring?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I can’t comment I can’t comment on search algorithms or recommendations given my purview as Digital Well-being lead. I can take that back to my team though.

CRUZ: So is it part of Digital Well-being for search recommendations to reflect the where user wants to go than deliberately shifting where they want to go?

GOOGLE: As a user experience professional, we focus on delivering on user goals. So we try to get out of the way and on the task at hand.

CRUZ: So a final question, one of these documents that was leaked explains what Google is doing and it has a series of stamps, training data, collected and classified, algorithms are programmed, media are filtered ranked and aggregated, and that ends with, people, parenthesis, like us, are programmed. Does Google view its job as programming people with search results?

Brave - The Browser Built for Privacy

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I can’t speak for the whole entire company, but I can tell you that we make sure that we put our users first in design.

CRUZ: Well I think these questions, these documents raise very serious questions about political bias.

As Google scrambles to perform damage control, you can expect it to issue unending, inane public statements that contradict the clear evidence before the world. This is how things are done at the “Ministry of Truth.”

The Technocrat coup is in full swing now, and we should have illusions that there are “good people” somewhere in the midst of this. The battle lines have been drawn, but the war has barely begun.

If you are hot to conquer censorship, go immediately to Citizens For Free Speech (CFFS) and join the battle. CFFS defends and promotes the First Amendment that gives us the right to speak up. If we lose this right, it’s “game over.”

---

Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.

He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.

Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development on a global scale.

An economist by education, a financial analyst and writer by profession and an American Constitutionalist by choice, Wood maintains a Biblical world view and has deep historical insights into the modern attacks on sovereignty, property rights and personal freedom. Such attacks are epitomized by the implementation of U.N. policies such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth and in education, the widespread adoption of Common Core State Standards.

Wood is a frequent speaker and guest on radio shows around the nation. His current research builds on Trilateral Commission hegemony, focusing on Technocracy, Transhumanism and Scientism, and how these are transforming global economics, politics and religion.

This article was sourced from Technocracy.News.

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

Image credit: Truthstream Media

By Netizen Report Team

The Advox Netizen Report offers an international snapshot of challenges, victories, and emerging trends in technology and human rights around the world. This report covers news and events from June 21-27, 2019.

Struggles for political power in Myanmar, Mauritania and Ethiopia have led to widespread shutdowns of Internet services this week, all at the behest of government officials.

Nine regions of Myanmar — eight in Rakhine state and one in Chin state — have been without Internet access since June 21, when authorities ordered Internet service providers — including Telenor, Ooredoo, Myanmar Post and Telecommunication and MyTel — to cut off connections. Voice calls and SMS remain in operation.

The permanent secretary of the Ministry of Transport and Communications, U Soe Thein, explained that the measure is meant to “maintain security, peace, and order.” Rakhine state and the southern part of Chin state have been the sites of clashes between the Myanmar military and the Rakhine ethnic armed group, Arakan Army, since 2015. Rakhine has been the epicenter of the Myanmar military’s attacks on the Rohingya ethnic group, which led hundreds of thousands to flee the country and seek refuge across the border in Bangladesh.

United Nations investigators later identified the Internet as a catalyst for attacks on Rohingya people, noting in a fact-finding report that the military had used Facebook to promote messages of hate and violence toward the majority Muslim ethnic group.

Maung Saungkha, from the Myanmar Freedom of Speech Organization, Athan, warned that disabling mobile data and Internet connections could be a prelude to more human rights violations. He urged the civilian government not to be an accomplice in rights violations and to lift Internet restrictions to allow people to share information.

Disputed presidential elections in the North African nation of Mauritania led to protests in the capital, Nouakchott. Government-backed candidate Mohamed Ould Ghazouani appears to have garnered 52 percent of the vote, but allegations of fraud have been widespread, and three of his leading opponents, including anti-slavery activist Biram Dah Abeid, are challenging the results before the Constitutional Council.

The protests triggered shutdowns of major social media and communication services beginning on June 25. The Media Foundation for West Africa reported that Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Viber and YouTube were inaccessible, while Global Voices’ sources on the ground said Internet access — including fixed cable connections — was down altogether.

And in Ethiopia, following a week-long shutdown shutdown in early June that was intended to prevent cheating on national secondary school exams, residents once again found themselves cut off from the Internet. The shutdown came just after a series of violent attacks against leading state government officials in the Amhara region on June 22, in which the regional president and a top adviser were killed. Hours later, Ethiopia’s army chief of staff was shot dead by his bodyguard in the country’s capital. Many media have described the attacks as an attempted regional coup.

Cubans demand lower prices for Internet access

Throughout the month of June, Cubans on Twitter have been promoting the hashtag #Bajenlospreciosdeinternet (#Bringdowninternetprices) in a campaign directed at ETECSA, the country’s sole telecommunications provider, which is government operated. Although it has become easier and more affordable to get online in Cuba since 2014, the cost of connecting (roughly one US dollar per hour of usage at public wifi spots) is still exorbitantly high by global standards, and internet speeds in Cuba remain very slow.

On Twitter, government employees and supporters have responded to the campaign by tweeting general Internet usage statistics and pointing out that many Cubans have free Internet access at their places of work and school. Others have accused Internet cost campaigners of being traitors to the nation. Cuba’s Minister of Communications warned:

The Constitution approved by 87% of the population in Article 16 “defends the democratization of cyberspace [and] condemns its use (…) for purposes contrary to the above, including the subversion and destabilization of sovereign nations.”

Egyptian news site remains blocked

The website for Egyptian newspaper al-Tahrir has been blocked in Egypt since May 9. Its board of directors recently reported that the site is in danger of financial ruin. The outlet has continued to produce its weekly print version and publish its journalism online using virtual private networks (VPNs), but the site provided 80 percent of its advertising revenue, its editor-in-chief told Committee to Protect Journalists. Authorities haven’t publicly stated the reason for the site’s inaccessibility.

UN expert calls for ban on surveillance tech

Brave - The Browser Built for Privacy

At the 41st meeting of the UN Human Rights Council this week, David Kaye — the UN Special Rapporteur for the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of opinion — called for an all-out ban on surveillance technology. Kaye likened the private surveillance technology industry to a “free for all” in which states have become multi-million dollar clients, purchasing surveillance technologies such as mobile phone spyware and deploying it at-will. Kaye said to the Council:

States and industry are collaborating in the spread of technology that is causing immediate and regular harm to individuals and organisations that are essential to democratic life – journalists, activists, opposition figures, lawyers, and others.

Research by the Citizen Lab, Amnesty International and many national-level groups has proven that these tools are used to target activists and journalists.

New research

• Exploring Digital & Mobile Cultures in Myanmar — Thant Sin and Ye Min Thant, Phandeeyar


• Algoritmos y desigualdades [Algorithms and Inequalities] — Natalia Zuazo, Derechos Digitales

Subscribe to the Netizen Report

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

Op-Ed by Michael Rieger

Whenever a supposed small-government conservative threatens to use “the heavy hand of government,” you know something has gone terribly wrong. Yet Texas Senator Ted Cruz uttered those very words to a Google executive at a congressional hearing Tuesday.

Regulating Social Media Censorship

Cruz joins plenty of other conservatives, most notably Senate colleague Josh Hawley, in supporting the regulation of social media companies due to persistent anti-conservative bias. While Cruz is right to be angry, his threats of government regulation are decidedly un-conservative and counterproductive. Government regulations are the real threat here, not social media companies’ policies.

Civil society and political debate in the United States didn’t begin with Facebook, nor would they end if social media disappeared overnight. Before the Internet, politically active Americans could still call in to radio shows, attend city council meetings, and write op-eds for their local newspapers—all of which they can still do.

When Zuckerberg and his roommates at Harvard first created Facebook, they hardly expected it to grow into an important forum for political discourse.

Facebook and other social media sites are, at their core, social networking services provided by the private sector. Social media is not a utility (no one has Facebook pipes hooked up to their homes) or a university where freedom of speech is imperative. As a customer-focused service, Facebook’s primary responsibility is to provide a climate that is best suited to its users, the majority of whom are more interested in sharing photos of their pets and children than they are in long political screeds.

In fact, Facebook’s broad user base is actually responsible for it having a more laissez-faire attitude toward censorship than many of its contemporaries. For example, Bumble, a dating app, banned guns from its users’ profiles, claiming it didn’t want to mix violence and romance. Facebook has done no such thing, likely held in check by its users’ preferences.

Furthermore, Facebook has proven to be remarkably responsive to users’ concerns. Facebook significantly revamped their privacy and security settings in response to questions following the Cambridge Analytica scandal and even brought in Jon Kyl, a former Republican senator from Arizona, to lead an effort to eliminate political bias on the platform.

Government Regulation Threatens Freedom

Facebook is held most accountable by its users, or more precisely, the threat that its users may cease to be users. Contrary to popular opinion, Facebook is not a monopoly and is constantly competing with other social media platforms for consumers’ time. While platforms like Twitter, Snapchat, and Reddit aren’t one-to-one replacements for Facebook’s services, an overly censored Facebook risks having its users invest more time in these other spaces.

In fact, government regulation of social media poses a far greater danger to freedom of speech than social media companies themselves ever could. While many Americans may find any sort of censorship by Facebook distasteful, the competition Facebook faces makes it far more receptive to its users’ demands than a regulatory agency.

After all, many regulatory agencies have a troubled history of using their power to settle scores or advance partisan agendas. Those calling for social media regulation would do well to remember that the IRS targeted conservative organizations, and the FBI investigated Fox News journalist James Rosen for simply doing his job.

Were the Obama administration still in power, it is unlikely that conservatives would trust the government to regulate online speech, and we have no reason to believe that those in charge of regulating social media will always be amenable to specific political views; the Trump administration won’t hold power forever.

Finally, the regulation of Facebook opens the door to crony capitalism that could make its dominance over social media even stronger. Rather than weakening Facebook, government regulation of social media could strengthen and entrench it by reducing competition from other social media platforms and making it harder for new platforms to enter the market, including niche social media platforms that cater specifically to conservatives. It’s easy to forget that Facebook is only 13 years old and that it eliminated the “monopoly” of MySpace before it.

Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!

While many users may bristle at Facebook’s power to censor, they are much better served complaining to Facebook, or simply logging off, than they are handing off power over the Internet to Uncle Sam.

---

Michael received his B.A. (2016) from the University of Michigan in history, with a specialization in East Asian history.  His thesis, “Reverse Course: The Secret Battle for the Japanese Economy”, focused on the ideological disputes involved in the reconstruction of the Japanese economy after World War II and won the William P. Malm Award for Outstanding Student Writing in Japanese Studies and the Arthur Fondiler Award for Best Undergraduate Thesis.  He worked as an intern for the Cato Institute and Libertarianism.org in Fall 2016.

This article was sourced from FEE.org

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

By Dylan Charles, Editor, Waking Times

If you’re half awake today you already know that in the last couple of years we have officially entered the era of digital censorship. Independent media organizations with hard-earned followings have been de-platformed from social media and have been ejected from online business services, bankrupting many of them. This happens mostly for ambiguous reasons relating to supposed community guidelines, but the more time goes by and the more outlets that get banned and censored, the clearer it becomes that someone up high has a real problem with independent thinking.

Media companies and small websites like mine, WakingTimes.com, have seen drastic reductions in social media reach, if not banned altogether. Our YouTube account was deleted in 2017 for no clear reason, nuking a bunch of interviews I had with amazing people like Edgar Mitchell and David Icke. We’ve seen major cuts to our organic search engine traffic, and we’ve had numerous ‘fake news’ watchdog sites add our name to blacklists of sites that are supposedly doing the world harm. Usually these sites are anonymous and offer no way to seek recourse.

Now, however, a new organization is working to position itself as the end-all-be-all of Internet truth, and they have already developed partnerships with major tech companies, including Microsoft. NewsGuard is essentially a browser plug-in that will stand between you and the content you want to see, flashing you with warning labels, hoping to scare you away from sites and content that their organization has decided are unsafe for the Net. This wouldn’t be a big deal if it were voluntary but this plug-in will soon be automatically installed for you on a number of browsers and operating systems.

Now, I’m somewhat unique in that I don’t take kindly to bullying of any sort, and strong-arming really chaps my ass. You might also say I’m a bit paranoid, but that doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me. LOL (that’s one of my favorite jokes, btw)

I guess, though, when you dive deeply into the shit storm that is modern life in a world with corrupt states and corporate oligarchs,  you start to really understand the value of your own sovereignty and look for ways to establish boundaries. And when everyone you admire is being put up against the wall, you realize that at some point you’re not going to have anything else to lose. That being silent and passive no longer serves as merits.

And while all of this sucks, for sure, I’ve never been one to complain. If life puts up roadblocks on one path, it’s better to start carving a new one. That’s the Taoist in me, I suppose. It’s also easier than ever for me these days to see the bigger, cosmic picture in all of this.

None of us get off this rock alive, but that doesn’t automatically mean that any of us really live either. You have to choose to be the creator of your own life, which is challenging to do when so many petty tyrants and overpaid a-holes want to control you.

So, you’re free to look up NewsGuard online, I won’t bother linking to them, and to make your own opinion of them, but since it’s not in my nature to endure arrogance and bullying I thought it would be fun to post here a recent email thread I had with them.

In a nutshell, they’ve been contacting sites like mine with a list of questions seeking to establish their dominance as the authority on objective journalism and the prevailing champion of public thought-safety on the Net. I disagree whole-heartedly with their mission, as I don’t believe that you or anyone else needs a for-profit company protecting you from ideas and words.

In truth, though, Internet censorship has already gone so far that none of us really have anything left to lose. I think we might as well at least make it known that we do not consent to being policed by fascist organizations masquerading as polite, good-cop, objective, safety buddies, whom we have to accept into our lives or else have our business shut down and wiped off the Net.

Anyhow, here is an exchange of four emails I recently had with NewsGuard staff. By posting this I am hoping to create awareness about just how institutionalized Internet censorship is becoming, and also to provide inspiration for other hard-working journalists like myself who may not have yet developed the courage to stand up for themselves when approached by organizations like this.

Resistance is a spiritual affair. It is an intentional confrontation with fear, and an act of sincere self love.

Read on if you’re interested to know how your favorite blogs and indy media sites are being butt-sniffed by over-funded corporate watch dog organizations like NewsGuard.

NewsGuard Email # 1 from Nina Zweig, NewsGuard Staff Analyst

Hi Dylan and Anna,

My name is Nina Zweig, and I’m a reporter for NewsGuard Technologies, a new service that reviews news and information websites for credibility and transparency based on widely accepted journalistic standards. These reviews, which include a written summary and a checklist of nine criteria, are intended to help readers have more context for the news they read online.

We’re reviewing WakingTimes.com, and I have a few questions about the site’s editorial standards and transparency practices that I’m reaching out to get your comment on:

1. One of NewsGuard’s criteria is whether a site regularly corrects or clarifies errors. I found one recent correction on the site, but could not find any others published after 2015. Would you be able to send me a few examples of corrections recently published by Waking Times?

2. Who is responsible for editing Waking Times’s content?

3. Another NewsGuard criterion concerns whether a website’s headlines are accurate. How do you — or whomever edits the site’s content — ensure that Waking Times’s headlines do not contain false information?

4. Can you comment on how Waking Times verifies the accuracy of claims such as those made about the safety of vaccines and 5G cellphone technology, or the existence of “chemtrails”?

5. Do you consider Waking Times to have a particular perspective? I see that you outline some of your beliefs on the site’s About page — could you elaborate on what’s included there?

6. Does WakingTimes.com disclose its ownership by Waking Media in any location other than its copyright statement?

7. Another thing that NewsGuard looks for in our review process is whether a site consistently provides the names of content creators, including either biographical information or contact details. This information seems to be missing from some Waking Times articles. Could you comment on how Waking Times readers can contact writers or learn about their background?

Thank you for your time. I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Nina Zweig
Staff Analyst
(860) 577-0374
NewsGuard Technologies
Download NewsGuard for your browser: Click here.
Follow NewsGuard on Twitter: @NewsGuardRating

Reply #1 by Dylan Charles, Editor of Waking Times

Hi Nina,

I’ve been looking forward to hearing from NewGuard, so it’s great to finally get a note of interest from you. I’m eager to answering your questions, but first, I do have some I have some questions of my own, if you would be so kind as to indulge me here.

Firstly, though, I am the editor and founder of the site, and Anna is no longer with us, so please consider myself to be your contact. I am the sole person responsible for the all of the content on the site.

My questions for you:

– I understand the NewsGuard is tasking itself with addressing ‘fake news’ on the internet, and is partnering with some very big companies to do so, therefore, to gain approval and endorsement from your organization could be very profitable for my business, while being at odds with NewsGuard’s ideology and political positions could prove to be financially devastating for my small business. What exactly do I need to do in order to prevent your organization from slandering myself and my company and thereby causing me grievous financial harm?

– If I politely decline to answer your questions, will it result in my site being slandered and blocked by NewsGuard, thereby causing grievous financial harm to my business, which supports myself, my wife and my three children?

– What are your credentials as a ‘Staff Analyst?’ What background and professional experience do you have, and how does this qualify you to be evaluating and potentially publicly slandering my business?

– Who is your supervisor and how my I personally contact them? Who is the CEO or President of NewsGuard and how may I personally contact them?

– How is NewsGuard funded? What is the profit model you are using to engage in this kind of research, and if it is funded by outside parties or organizations, who are the primary sources sustaining your efforts here? Are you a non-profit, or are you able to make money by harassing and slandering small publications such as mine?

– What are NewsGuard’s political biases and explicit and inexplicit motivations for conducting your work? What are the biases of its owners and leadership? How does NewsGuard intend to maintain objectivity when reviewing sites like mine? Who decides whether or not a bit of information is to be considered factual or not?

– Of the thousands of articles we have posted on hundreds of different topics, why did you only note vaccine, 5G, cell phones, and chemtrails in your email to me? Are these issues somehow of particular concern to NewsGuard, and if so, what are NewsGuard’s official positions on these particular issues?

– Should I happen to be at odds with your positions (which I am legally, ethically, and morally permitted to be), will this result in me being slandered and having my business grievously financially harmed by your organization?

– You asked me about headlines. Have you found any headlines on Waking Times that contain inaccurate information? Please let me know if you do, because the wording of your question implies that there is, and if there is, as editor of the site I certainly would like to know. That said, you might as well have just asked when the last time I beat my wife was. Ha… there’s some humor for you, if you’re allowed to laugh at your job, that is.

– In the past, it has been considered a crime to approach a business owner and strong arm them into complying with demands under threat of grievous financial or bodily harm. Is it legal for NewsGuard to publicly slander and cause grievous financial harm to my business should I choose to exercise my legal right to opt out of your friendly questionnaire?

– Are you capable of ascertaining our editorial perspective by looking at and reading our content, or do you require explanation above and beyond what you see and read on the site?

– Will you please provide me with a detailed list of names, biographical information, and contact info of all the employees, management and ownership of NewsGuard?

– A number of my colleagues and associates have informed me that your organization has treated them exceptionally unfairly and has slandered their organizations, causing them grievous financial harm. What recourse do I have should I experience the same treatment? Is there an appeals process to clear my good name should you ultimately decide to slander my business?

Again, thanks so much for your interest in our work, and I look forward to gaining a more thorough understanding of the scope and intention of your work.

Highest Regards,

_Dylan Charles, Editor
www.WakingTimes.com

News Guard Email #2 from Eric Effron, Editorial Director at NewsGuard

Dear Mr. Charles,

Please see the responses to your questions below that you directed to Nina Zweig. I am NewsGuard’s editorial director, so I thought I would respond myself.

– I understand the NewsGuard is tasking itself with addressing ‘fake news’ on the internet, and is partnering with some very big companies to do so, therefore, to gain approval and endorsement from your organization could be very profitable for my business, while being at odds with NewsGuard’s ideology and political positions could prove to be financially devastating for my small business. What exactly do I need to do in order to prevent your organization from slandering myself and my company and thereby causing me grievous financial harm?

NewsGuard endeavors to review and rate all sites, regardless of ideology, according to nine basic journalistic criteria, which we spell out in detail on our site, www.newsguardtech.com. Before we publish anything about a site that might be seen as criticism, we seek comment multiple times. Comments from sites whose editors speak with us are included in the write-up. Once our write-ups are published and we learn we made a mistake, we correct it quickly and transparently. We also invite sites that are not happy with the write-up to submit a response on our website.

– If I politely decline to answer your questions, will it result in my site being slandered and blocked by NewsGuard, thereby causing grievous financial harm to my business, which supports myself, my wife and my three children?

We think the write-ups are stronger and more valuable when sites respond to our requests for comment. However, if a site chooses to not engage with us, that does not change our approach and our desire to be fair and accurate.

– What are your credentials as a ‘Staff Analyst?’ What background and professional experience do you have, and how does this qualify you to be evaluating and potentially publicly slandering my business?

Everyone who writes or edits our Nutrition Labels is identified on the write-up, and the byline links to a biography on the site. Biographies for all our staff are available here.

– Who is your supervisor and how my I personally contact them? Who is the CEO or President of NewsGuard and how may I personally contact them?

All of that information is explicitly detailed on the website, including all contact information.

– How is NewsGuard funded? What is the profit model you are using to engage in this kind of research, and if it is funded by outside parties or organizations, who are the primary sources sustaining your efforts here? Are you a non-profit, or are you able to make money by harassing and slandering small publications such as mine?

Information about our investors can be found on our website here. Our business model involves licensing our content to tech platforms and others. We do not charge the sites that we review. That would be an obvious conflict of interest.

– What are NewsGuard’s political biases and explicit and inexplicit motivations for conducting your work? What are the biases of its owners and leadership? How does NewsGuard intend to maintain objectivity when reviewing sites like mine? Who decides whether or not a bit of information is to be considered factual or not?

We are journalists and aspire to be as fair and open-minded as we can be. Our motivation is to help consumers make wiser decisions about the news and information that they consume. We have give the highest ratings and the lowest ratings to sites across the political spectrum.

– Of the thousands of articles we have posted on hundreds of different topics, why did you only note vaccine, 5G, cell phones, and chemtrails in your email to me? Are these issues somehow of particular concern to NewsGuard, and if so, what are NewsGuard’s official positions on these particular issues?

We think it is important to let consumers know about content that may be false or misleading, especially on matters related to public policy and human health. We don’t take positions.

– Should I happen to be at odds with your positions (which I am legally, ethically, and morally permitted to be), will this result in me being slandered and having my business grievously financially harmed by your organization?

As mentioned, we seek to be fair and accurate — which is one reason we try so hard to engage with sites before we publish. If we make a mistake, we correct it quickly and transparently.

– You asked me about headlines. Have you found any headlines on Waking Times that contain inaccurate information? Please let me know if you do, because the wording of your question implies that there is, and if there is, as editor of the site I certainly would like to know. That said, you might as well have just asked when the last time I beat my wife was. Ha… there’s some humor for you, if you’re allowed to laugh at your job, that is.

Here are some of the Waking Times headlines that we would like to ask you about:

http://archive.fo/oWAHO
http://archive.fo/tyg5U
http://archive.fo/OgSUL
http://archive.fo/TLsHx
http://archive.fo/aKLWZ
http://archive.fo/mNJKe

– In the past, it has been considered a crime to approach a business owner and strong arm them into complying with demands under threat of grievous financial or bodily harm. Is it legal for NewsGuard to publicly slander and cause grievous financial harm to my business should I choose to exercise my legal right to opt out of your friendly questionnaire?

Sorry, but I’m not sure what you are referring to. As a journalistic organization, we seek comment before we publish. Again, we will treat you just as fairly if you agree to be interviewed or don’t agree. But your answers will likely make our review more complete.

– Are you capable of ascertaining our editorial perspective by looking at and reading our content, or do you require explanation above and beyond what you see and read on the site?

We mostly base our assessments on what is on a site, but are happy to get further insight from the people behind the site.

– Will you please provide me with a detailed list of names, biographical information, and contact info of all the employees, management and ownership of NewsGuard?

Here again is the link to our staff list.

– A number of my colleagues and associates have informed me that your organization has treated them exceptionally unfairly and has slandered their organizations, causing them grievous financial harm. What recourse do I have should I experience the same treatment? Is there an appeals process to clear my good name should you ultimately decide to slander my business?

Again, I’m not sure what you are referring to in terms of “slander,” but as I mentioned, if any site is unhappy with our write-up, we are happy to publish their response on our website.

If you have any additional concerns, feel free to contact me.

Best regards,
Eric Effron
Editorial Director, NewsGuard
Follow me on Twitter: @EricEffron
[email protected]
212.332.6317
Download the desktop browser extension here.

Reply #2 by Dylan Charles, Editor of Waking Times

Hi Eric, I’m just now getting to this.

Brave - The Browser Built for Privacy

Again, thanks for such a polite reply. I’m an exceptionally kind and friendly person, and I’m sure that should you and I be sitting face to face with one another we’d have a spirited and intelligent discussion about all this. Honestly, though, I’m finding it difficult to muster such high virtue in our conversation here, as I have a very acute disdain for bullies and control freaks. And let’s be honest, your organization’s mission is to control what information people have access to. This is anathema to my worldview, plus it would be exceptionally naive of me to believe that your organization is truly objective and has no agenda. Especially considering today’s climate of partisanship and open corporate censorship.

Regarding the links you sent, I’m not sure what your concern is, other than you all seem to be very interested in the issues of chemtrails (which is now openly being referred to as ‘solar radiation management,’ ‘solar geoengineering,’ ‘atmospheric spraying,’ and ‘climate hacking,’ by mainstream news sources… https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/08/08/this-climate-change-hack-would-reflect-more-sunlight-not-such-a-bright-idea-study-says), 5G, vaccines, and alternative views on health and wellness.

Many sites like mine are being openly censored right now by social media platforms and other tech services explicitly for covering non-mainstream views on these very topics, so your mention of only these issues out of hundreds that we cover reveals that you do in fact have a bias.

Furthermore, one of the links you sent me (http://archive.fo/aKLWZ) is from an article that I had removed from our site years ago, although it lives on at archive.today. Not double checking this and sending me a link of something that doesn’t exist is exceptionally irresponsible of you, and the fact that you’re not actually taking the time to fact check your own email to me speaks volumes about your organization’s ability to fact check the entire internet. Have you ever even visited our actual site? I wonder.

But if you want to know more about these particular articles and the headlines, just read them. Our site is available to the public, which includes you. If you don’t agree with something or don’t like our perspective, then all you have to do is click on something else. It’s really that easy, so let’s not pretend like the world can’t survive without NewsGuard.

I will say, though, that I understand what you are attempting to do and while there certainly are sites on the net that deliberately publish lies and false information, it’s pretty obvious to even the most junior news censor and grade school imbecile that Waking Times is not in that category.

I must also say that I am philosophically at odds with your mission, and therefore cannot in good conscience participate in your efforts to assert yourselves as the most trustworthy, objective fact checkers on the planet. I just don’t think that the world needs your protection. Call me crazy. When I was a kid I used to ride a bike without a helmet, too. Go figure.

Really, my hunch is that you and I are different breeds. I believe in the power of people and the greatness of the individual, and I will forever advocate for freedom of thought and freedom of speech. You, on the other hand, seem to operate with the belief that people should be saved from thinking for themselves, and that somehow everyone else simply can’t live without having the opinions of NewsGuard injected in between themselves and something they want to look at online.

I mean, really, though, you’re just a bunch of dudes getting paid to do what you’re told. If your boss says to put a public warning on Waking Times because he doesn’t like the color of my hair, you, Eric, will do it, because you need the job and you like the money and benefits package you get for following orders.

And it’s not like St. Thomas Aquinas sits on your Board of Directors. You don’t have God’s wisdom in your back pocket. You don’t have some secret sauce that no one but NewsGuard can comprehend. Get over yourselves already.

As I see it, it’s a control freak thing, and while I’m sure you’re drawing a nice salary doing what you do, your efforts here amount to censorship, which is corrosive and destructive to free societies. I cannot and will not oblige.

The work I do is honest, of high integrity, it helps people who need our kind of help, and people the world over are free to take it or leave it. Unless, of course, your organization succeeds in placing your opinions of us in between us and our readers, which, I’m certain, is the most likely outcome of our conversation here.

I am highly educated, exceptionally intelligent, a very talented writer and editor, and also very well versed on my rights, which are fundamentally enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, namely in the Bill of Rights. I seek to illuminate perspectives on issues which are often under-reported on by mainstream news sources. I pursue ideas and viewpoints which resonate with my experiences and understanding of the world, and I openly acknowledge that most people out there don’t agree with me. And that is okay.

So until you actually merge with the government and form an actual Ministry of Truth, and then carry the full weight of law and state violence in your quest to police all content on the internet, I think I’ll pass on hoping to curry favor with you organization, no matter how polite you guys are.

This means that I’m okay with whatever it is that you want to say about us. Freedom is as freedom does, so have fun warning the world of the potential dangers of 5 articles on an independent media site containing almost 8500 articles.

Most likely, though, anything negative you say about us will result in stronger support from our audience and will help us maintain our image as an organization that isn’t interested in conforming to pressures and demands of corporate censors. I know that the readers whom appreciate our work will find us no matter what kind of warning label you put on us.

So, I guess you could say that my official position is that in my opinion the world just doesn’t need you guys or anyone else telling people what and what not to think. There are so many bigger problems you could be addressing with your resources.

So feel free to publish whatever you like about us, and please send me a link when you do.

And I’m 100% certain that you know what slander is, so I’ll pretend like you didn’t ask me that.

Have a sweet day.

Regards,
_Dylan Charles, Editor
www.WakingTimes.com

---

End Transmission…

Please share this far and wide, and let’s work together to maintain freedom of thought and freedom of speech!

Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and co-host of Redesigning Reality, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.

This article (NewsGuard is ‘Reviewing’ Every Indy Media Site on the Web – READ Their Email Exchange with Waking Times) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

By Ellery Roberts Biddle

Cuban officials issued a decree law on July 4 that prohibits Cuban citizens from running websites hosted outside of the country. The law deals a heavy blow to Cuba’s growing independent media sector, where nearly all media sites and blogs take advantage of foreign hosting services and blogging platforms.

The law offers no details on its implementation — it is unclear whether it will affect people who use foreign-based social media platforms to publish their views — but Cubans say it presents at least two significant problems for any citizen who wants to run their own website. First, under the new rule, they will incur new costs. Hosting services in Cuba, which are provided exclusively by ETECSA, the country’s sole, state-run telecommunications provider, are more expensive than many foreign hosting services, and more than running a basic blog on a site like WordPress, where the minimum cost is zero.

The second and more worrisome aspect of the rule is that Cuban state regulations impose tight restrictions on which types of websites can be hosted in Cuba at all. According to item 28 on a long FAQ posted by ETECSA, publications that constitute “news media” cannot seek hosting on Cuban servers. Furthermore, for bloggers and others who write independent commentary, the rules prohibit content that “contradict[s] any provision of law or governmental act” or that could disrupt “public order.”

In a country where the media landscape is made up of three major components — state-run media, foreign press and wire services, and small but increasingly powerful local independent media groups — the new rule could put this third sector into long-term legal limbo.

“The law leaves independent media without ‘legal’ hosting options,” said local journalist and Global Voices author Elaine Díaz. “By imposing fines, they are criminalizing a decision that should not have any legal consequence.” Díaz is the editor-in-chief of Periodismo de Barrio, an independent media group based in Havana.

On Twitter, Díaz also criticized the fact that the law was brought in by decree, rather than undergoing discussion and scrutiny by the state assembly.

Declare Your Independence!

Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!


Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom

#mc_embed_signup {clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 15px; }
.cmhead{color: rgb(255,199,27); text-shadow: 1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); text-align: center; font-size: 250%; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: 700;}
.cmsubhead{color: rgb(255,255,255); text-align: center; font-size: 150%; font-family: sans-serif;}
.cmformhead{color: rgb(30, 29, 29); font-size: 160%; font-family: sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px;}
#mc_embed_signup form { display: inline-block; background-color: #FFF; background-color: #FFF; margin-top: 20px; border-color: rgb(31, 31, 31);
outline: none;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
opacity: 1;
border-width: 3px;
border-style: solid;
border-radius: 5px;
width:70%;
}
#mc_embed_signup input.email {width: 90%; }
#mc_embed_signup input.button { width: 93%; background-color: rgb(246, 137, 34); border-bottom: 3px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.2); font-size: 160%;}
#mc_embed_signup .button:hover {background-color: #e67409;}
/* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Claim Your FREE Issue Today!

#NoMásDecretazos El artículo 68 afecta a cualquier ciudadano que tenga un blog en @wordpressdotcom o una página en @Medium. Es una violación y ni siquiera pasó por la Asamblea. La informatización debe ser por consenso o será injusta y arbitraria. pic.twitter.com/J2RVDXjdQ7

— Elaine Díaz (@elainediaz2003) July 5, 2019

Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!

#NoMoreDecrees Article 68 affects any citizen who has a blog on @wordpress or a page on @Medium. It is a violation and it was not even approved by the [National] Assembly. Information policies should be decided by consensus, or they will be unjust and arbitrary.

---

Ellery Roberts Biddle — I am the advocacy director at Global Voices (advox.org) and a long-time member of the Global Voices community. My job is to support our community’s efforts to report and advocate on internet censorship and surveillance around the world. I am originally from Philadelphia, US and have lived in Buenos Aires, Argentina and Havana, Cuba. Follow me on Twitter.

A WiFi symbol in Old Havana, Cuba. Photo by Nano Anderson, taken from Flickr under a CC License BY 2.0.

This article was sourced from GlobalVoices.org

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.