Free Speech Being Removed by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft

[Mystic Wanderer]

Well, isn't this the icing on the cake?!!         


This just shows that the alternative media is waking people up.  Otherwise, they would have no reason to try and shut us up.  Too bad! They can't stop the truth! There are other avenues we can use to spread the truth, like Rogue Nation and other boards. Ha-ha!  You all just thought you could shut us up!  No... we will spread the truth until everyone realizes how corrupt the MSM is for spreading lies!

Yes, I'm against spreading hate, but this is just their way of closing all of us down... or so they think.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft have officially partnered with the European Commission in order to crack down on free speech by banning “alternative media” from their platforms.
The European Commission announced their partnership with Facebook and other social media giants on Tuesday, saying they have ordered these internet giants to completely eliminate “hate speech” and “counter-narratives” from the internet.

Members of the European Parliament have criticised the new partnership as being Orwellian in nature, warning that the move will effectively see alternative media die online.
The EU released its Big Brother-style “code of conduct” on Tuesday, which “includes a series of commitments to combat the spread of illegal hate speech online in Europe … together with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft,” who have agreed to comply.
Breitbart.com reports:
The commitments include “educat[ing] and rais[ing] awareness with their users” and building a “network” of “trusted reporters” to flag unwanted content. Facebook and Twitter are to provide “regular training to their staff on current societal developments” and work more closely with national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to remove content the EU does not favor.

Source

[senona]

Hate speech is one thing

But to try and eliminate “counter-narratives” is something else IMO


Definition of that....

What is a counternarrative?


A counternarrative is an argument that disputes a commonly held belief or truth.
These beliefs often relate to cultures, people and even institutions.

 
Often, counternarratives, which can also be called counter-storytelling, will be used to give people a voice who otherwise would not have one. As a narrative outlines a widely accepted belief as the truth, a counternarrative can be used to share a different point of view that may have not otherwise been considered.

These type of narratives do not necessarily discredit the beliefs that have been established, but instead offer a different way of thinking about particular topics. Authors of counternarratives will include other elements to support their position, such as videos and images.

So basically, they want us NOT to think outside the box.
To think and believe as they do.

Sounds a bit like indoctrination, making people believe/think/act as TPTB want the sheeple to.
Banning anything outside of their "approval" --- whatever the hell that would be.


So they are going to be judge and jury as to what gets posted and what viewers can read.....smh





Um, do believe Rogue-Nation and the likes would be considered 'Alternate  Media' in their eyes.
Spreading the truth, getting people to wake up is what we do.

And TPTB do not like that it would seem.

[BIAD]

Oddly enough, I've just written about a possible connection
to this discussion!
Sneaky Windows 10...

[guohua]

Oddly enough, I've just written about a possible connection
to this discussion!
Sneaky Windows 10...

DAMN!!!!!!!!  :cry: You beat me to posting that exact same thing about your other post.  :biggrin: ( did that come out right in English )

[Sol]

Banning Alternative Media?

Is it coming to that? Are we falling under totalitarian regimes more and more?

CONSUME - OBEY - DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY - SLEEP - SUBMIT

Ring a bell?

[Ninurta]

Oddly enough, I've just written about a possible connection
to this discussion!
Sneaky Windows 10...

Great post in that thread! It's not about eschewing the technology, because you may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is a value in being connected, but it's a two-edged sword that can cut both ways. I prefer to keep it close, where I can watch it with a squinted eye, like that big spider up in the corner of the ceiling. If I scare it off, there's no telling where it goes or what it gets up to, or when it might sneak back up on me when I'm not looking, but if it's right there where I can see it, then I know what it's up to, and when it might attack.

The internet and the spider also both have beneficial aspects - the internet can educate, and the spider rids me of other undesirable bugs... but both need to be watched, their habits and mannerisms, how they operate in ways that may help or hurt catalogued. By watching the internet, I learn how it influences opinion. Not only do i learn what to watch for, I learn how to counter it. With the spider, I learn how it moves, how fast it can move, and what routes it may prefer to sneak up on me, again I learn how it works and how to counter it.

There's probably a reason it's called "the world wide web.

With this disturbing maneuver by the EU, I see a weapon being constructed to be used, it is claimed, "for good" which is also designed to do great harm when it is turned against the very people who it was claimed to be protecting (that would be US), many of whom I fear will support it with all their heart, secure in the knowledge that Big Brother is looking out for them... however false that sense of security may be. It was not lost on me that in one part of the article, the EU claimed to be "partnering" with these tech giants, yet in another the EU claimed it "ordered" these companies to clean up the internet. Do "partners" really issue ORDERS to each other? I think not - issuing orders implies a master-slave relationship, not a partnership.

This development, in company with the information I posted concerning Windows 10 and "the internet of things" in the posts above yours in the Windows 10 thread added  together does not bode well for us, considering that Microsoft is one of the "partners" mentioned as having been given orders by the EU (and 95% or so of the computers in the world are operated by Microsoft)... but there is another disturbing aspect as well.

"Cleaning up the internet" has implications for not just the EU, but for the entire world- - it's a world wide web, as I mentioned before, not just limited to the confines of EU borders. Why can the EU not just do as China does, erect a Great Firewall, and police their own turf with an iron fist? What gives them the right to clean up MY house, or yours, or Ivan Ivanovich's house in Russia, or Jesus Ochoa's house in Argentina?

A potential clue is the rampant Globalism being promoted in the US, and much of the rest of the world. I fight against globalism, Trump and Sanders both fight against globalism, but the globalists are here trying to add a powerful new tool to their arsenal. It's not just the EU - although this bold step lays squarely on their shoulders - It's a globalist's wet dream to be able to control everyone, everywhere...

... and the EU is just testing the waters here to see how hard it will be to make that fly.

[guohua]

Here's an article I was reading today, you might want to read it.
No Freedom Left in this world, Big Brother and Sister are monitoring your every Word!

Arrests For Social Media Posts Surge In London

Sharing is scaring, say the cops'

Really even the police!! :stumped:

If you can’t do the time, don’t … eh… tweet carelessly in London? London is increasingly slapping people with prosecutions for reckless, aggressive or plain hateful language on social media.

“Online crimes of speech” are landing a growing number of people in London’s courts, according to data reported by the city’s police force in response to a Freedom of Information Request. While these types of arrests seemed to be on the decline between 2010 and 2013, a surge was observed again last year.
The Register reports that the number of arrests made for obscene, anxiety-causing, and otherwise offensive messages has increased by 37 percent since 2010. The most common type of these arrests is for “Sending messages intended to offend or menace,” accounting for over 60 percent of all crimes included under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This controversial bit of legislation broadly defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” a definition that could, frankly, apply to pretty much every website on earth at some point, particularly Britain’s own Daily Mail. Violating this law can carry a six-month prison term or fine of up to the equivalent of $5,500.

  REALLY?

The arrests were all made under the same legislation which spawned the UK’s infamous Twitter Joke Trial. Using just 135 characters, 28-year-old Paul Chambers tweeted a joke that would go on to capture the country’s attention.

“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky-high!!”
The “joke tweet” was initially deemed not credible by the airport staff that came across it, but police determined that it was enough to warrant an arrest, leading to a precedent-setting guilty verdict. In an essay for The Guardian, Chambers admitted that his frustrated tweet was “ill-advised,” but stated that the initial conviction caused him to believe that he lives “in such a hyper-sensitive world that we cannot engage in hyperbole…without having civil liberties trampled on by, at best, heavy-handed police.”

The case was eventually quashed on appeal (two years and several thousand pounds after the entire ordeal began) and the legislation in question was amended to include interim guidelines on how social media can and should be prosecuted. Under these guidelines, criminal prosecution was made limited to credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking. Chambers’ threat was deemed not credible, given the audience.

In more recent years, the legislation has been used to arrest Twitter users responsible for making racist or anti-Muslim comments. Among the scores of those recently arrested for inflammatory posts was a Scottish resident who had been using Facebook as a platform to espouse his disdain for Syrian refugees.
Meeting the problem at its source, some British police departments have taken to social media platforms to remind citizens to “think before” posting offensive material.

Nice of them, they're tired of the Bull Shit Arrest!

View image on Twitter
[img=260x0]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce9FfcmWwAANHoX.jpg:small[/img]

[/url]

 Follow
GreaterGlasgPolice 

✔@GreaterGlasgPol
Think before you post or you may receive a visit from us this weekend. Use the internet safely. #thinkbeforeyoupost
4:43 AM - 1 Apr 2016

• 
  
   
  
• 
   981981 Retweets
   
  
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=715867273261662208] 529529 likes
  

While citizens of the United Kingdom have largely unimpinged-upon internet access, the most recent Freedom on the Net report states that there is a higher degree of content limitations there than in the U.S. Online harassment remains a problem throughout the world, and the UK is no exception. A recent study found that the words ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ were used by UK Twitter users 10,000 times in merely three weeks.
But if you want to avoid a brush with the British law, there’s one golden rule. If in doubt, don’t tweet it out.

Lets post a Link so you can read the article: Link

[senona]

This part here, from the article just above ^^^^^

This controversial bit of legislation broadly defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” a definition that could, frankly, apply to pretty much every website on earth at some point, particularly Britain’s own Daily Mail.

Violating this law can carry a six-month prison term or fine of up to the equivalent of $5,500.

From my little bit of time dealing with Facebook, half if not more posts that I read are annoying and may cause anxiety....smh
So there is no telling what goes on in private messages, being as I have read about someone saying they blocked another person for a mean nasty message.

There is a lot of 'hate' filled comments on FB, more so than Twitter I think, being as they can carry on a dialog within a post.
Therefore depending on the topic, the comments can get way off track and downright insulting and nasty.

Over half of FB would be arrested or fined IMO if that happened in the U.S.....LOL


Sadly, people can be downright mean on the internet.
Virtual bullies is what they are.

[BIAD]

I don't have a Twitter account, nor a Facebook account or even a mobile telephone.
To some here, that may imply I'm a dinosaur and in a way, I am. But it's self-induced
and I think the term is 'techno-peasant'!

The way I see it -and it's not too far from Ninurta's cautious thinking, there was a time
when we used only land-lines for telephonic communication and for myself, that was fine.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the official Powers-That-Be would always require a
warrant to access my telephone account, this isn't the movies.

But now, we throw our voices and opinions up into the air and because I know that whatever
one man creates, another can counter and abuse it, those lumps of gossip, private information
and life-threatening data are greatly accessible without the need for paperwork.
Nobody owns the sky.

Some may say 'If you're not doing anything wrong, then what difference does it make?' -and
at face-value, I can understand why some would believe that. If we all unconsciously agree on
a moral benchmark for the internet and communication channels, then any suggestion of policing
would seem toothless as it would be globally acknowledged that the patrons were doing it
themselves!

But we only pretend to be adults... and the great cyber-highway is an ideal place to be the person
we secretly wished we were. In Cyberland, we can be good, bad (BIAD?!) and indifferent and even
perfom these actions all that same time under different names.

It's also an ideal area for a marketplace and with the school-promoted hardwired acceptance that
anything written tends to be true, it a place where the more-unscrupulous of us can steal, trick and
subject others to negative ordeals.

As Ninurta indicates, who does the European Union think they are?!! -and as a Brit, I would like to
offer my suggestion.

At first, I thought the EU were doing a stealthy version of China's decision and merely lighting a fire
to put it out. One only needs to propose an extreme of what one really wants and usually, the sheeple
will feel that they still have some form of control by dialing the debate back to some middle-ground
and a neutral acceptance. Yet in reality, you're further away from your original stance.

So the act of policing the internet would be worthless if only part of the world will agree to a partial
shield that would protect it's innocent residents from the evil-dripping information traffic.
It would still be available of course, just happening in another room.

But I would suggest it's more than just keeping Stacey from being sent images of men's genitalia
and Aaron tormenting the plump girl in class that he secretly fancies.

With the Silk Road being cleared and Russia being geographically annexed, there's a migration of
not just people, but a way of life that's intrinsically wrapped in a religion. I think this is their true fear.

Is this about a different way of praying or worshipping to a different god...? Is the concern about strict
doctrine that will be demanded to be adhered to, that may conflict with the current traditions of the groups
of countries that make up Europe...? No.
It's about money and power.

US President Jimmy Carter, state of the union address, Jan. 23, 1980:
'...Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian
Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and
such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force...'

So, the United States gets the oil and Europe gets the job of carrying the burden of conflict-torn migration.
But it's not just oil, the black-stuff isn't the only horse on this particular carousel.

Between 1970 and 1979 the United States committed to over $22 billion in arms sales to Iran, accounting
for roughly three-quarters of all of Iran’s weapons purchases during the decade.
Sales commitments to Saudi Arabia were more modest, at just under $3.5 billion for the decade, still a
significant amount considering that the United States only started selling weapons to the kingdom in 1972.

One could assume this lucrative industry hasn't tailed-off!

Then there's the problem of religion to contend with. Three of the worlds main religions are all based in the
Middle East and each lay claim to certain holy sites and are in territory that is contested between more than
one nation. This creates conflict over who controls those sites and more broadly over who controls the region,
another factor laid at Europe's doorstep.

Apart from feeding/housing them, the most difficult part would be to re-educate the migrants to perceive the
west as not just a basket of wealth, but a place of religious pluralism, where tolerance is now the watchword.
This would be difficult enough considering what Britain the French have done in the Middle East over the
centuries!

So for the officials of Europe to want to monitor and control the internet, this must be seen by them as a vital
act. The sins of the Father have come back to haunt his children and now, Europe is looking for a way to
listen at the door for it's footsteps.