+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst 1 4 14 16 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 309

Thread: Internet Censorship: So it began...

  1. Link to Post #261
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    62
    Posts
    4,259
    Thanks
    17,757
    Thanked 25,175 times in 4,002 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Today, InfoWars has been removed from view. I get an error code from the web that does not look legit and that I have never seen before.

    It says, YOU - OK.
    Chicago Cloud - OK.
    Inforwars - not ok...

    What the heck is a Chicago Cloud? And if there is such a thing why was I sent into it? I want nothing what so ever to do with Chicago, or its mongoloid major!
    Something like this Ernie?



    As far as I know it is common when the hosting site you want to visit is down. The Chicago bit, cloud or not, is probably just the fastest hop the system found to get where you wanted to go. Between you and your destination there is always going to be a network server, routing traffic.
    That may be so, that this is how it has always been done. The routing is not, in theory, a complicated concept to understand. It is a bit suspicious that it comes now, and never before. It seems like it could have been a test, and my location has been filed. Alex Jones is warning that big tech has the ability now to selectively shut down IP addresses and web sites - like the Chinese censorship system can already do. He predicts they will deploy the system the day of the election to muzzle the counter narrative when they do the 'official' vote count.

    By the way, how did you get that screen to come up like that?
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 21st October 2020 at 20:56.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Gemma13 (28th October 2020), onawah (21st October 2020), Richter (24th October 2020)

  3. Link to Post #262
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    13,835
    Thanks
    31,601
    Thanked 62,085 times in 12,341 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Trump Administration, 11 States, Launch Antitrust Lawsuit Against Search Behemoth Google
    BY MATTHEW VADUM
    October 20, 2020
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-...g-2020-10-20-3

    "The U.S. Department of Justice and 11 states have filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Google accusing the internet search giant of unlawful monopolistic behavior in its search business.

    “Google is the gateway to the internet and a search advertising behemoth,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jeff Rosen told reporters. “It has maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that are harmful to competition.”

    Attorney General William Barr weighed in via press release.

    “Since my confirmation, I have prioritized the Department’s review of online market-leading platforms to ensure that our technology industries remain competitive. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of Google’s grip over the internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist.”

    The lawsuit against Google was filed Oct. 20 in federal court in the District of Columbia by the federal government and 11 states—Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas—against Google LLC of Mountain View, California.

    The proceeding was brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a federal statute, in an effort “to restrain Google LLC (Google) from unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices, and to remedy the effects of this conduct,” according to the 64-page legal complaint.

    According to the plaintiffs, Google owns or controls about 80 percent of the market for search channels and accounts for 90 percent of all searches in the United States, and 95 percent of all mobile searches. Google’s market power, based upon its immense size and the exclusive agreements it uses allegedly to limit competition, makes it difficult for competitors to enter the search engine field and has the effect of forcing anyone who wants to conduct business online to access the company’s products.

    Google is specifically accused of “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices.”

    “Two decades ago,” the complaint states, “Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet.”

    “That Google is long gone. The Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet, and one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, with a market value of $1 trillion and annual revenue exceeding $160 billion. For many years, Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising—the cornerstones of its empire.”

    Seton Motley, president of Less Government, a Washington-area nonprofit, noted sarcastically that “Google’s only worth a trillion dollars. And controls 90 percent of Search. And a titanic percentage of online ad sales.”

    “Oh—and they have been engaging in massive election interference since at least 2016,” he told The Epoch Times.

    “I’m thrilled D.C. finally overcame the massive bipartisan cronyism Google has purchased with huge campaign coin to actually address a major threat to our economy and our republic.”

    Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a high-profile Silicon Valley critic, described the legal action as “the most important antitrust case in a generation.”

    “Google and its fellow Big Tech monopolists exercise unprecedented power over the lives of ordinary Americans, controlling everything from the news we read to the security of our most personal information,” Hawley said in a statement.

    Google reacted to the suit.

    “Google Search has put the world’s information at the fingertips of over a billion people,” Kent Walker, senior vice president of global affairs for the company, said in a statement.

    “Our engineers work to offer the best search engine possible, constantly improving and fine-tuning it. We think that’s why a wide cross-section of Americans value and often love our free products.

    “Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed. People use Google because they choose to, not because they’re forced to, or because they can’t find alternatives.

    “This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers. To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use.”

    The legal move against Google comes after criticism of the company, and of the large tech companies of Silicon Valley in general, has reached a fever pitch in recent days after Facebook and Twitter moved to suppress a news story centered around alleged corruption involving Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

    Republicans, who tend to focus on big tech’s threats to freedom of speech, have been more adamant in their criticism of such companies in recent years than Democrats, who tend to focus on the economic power concentrated in those companies and social justice issues.

    On Oct. 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee unexpectedly backed away from voting on subpoenas aimed at the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook, Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, respectively, whose companies Republican lawmakers say exhibit conspicuous anti-conservative bias, Politico reports.

    The panel is expected to move forward with a vote on Oct. 22, Axios reports. Republicans want to question the two CEOs about their platforms restricting the reach of the story about the Bidens, which first appeared in the New York Post."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (22nd October 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (22nd October 2020), Gemma13 (28th October 2020), Richter (24th October 2020)

  5. Link to Post #263
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,395
    Thanks
    13,126
    Thanked 8,721 times in 1,352 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Quote Posted by Ewan (here)
    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Today, InfoWars has been removed from view. I get an error code from the web that does not look legit and that I have never seen before.

    It says, YOU - OK.
    Chicago Cloud - OK.
    Inforwars - not ok...

    What the heck is a Chicago Cloud? And if there is such a thing why was I sent into it? I want nothing what so ever to do with Chicago, or its mongoloid major!
    Something like this Ernie?



    As far as I know it is common when the hosting site you want to visit is down. The Chicago bit, cloud or not, is probably just the fastest hop the system found to get where you wanted to go. Between you and your destination there is always going to be a network server, routing traffic.
    That may be so, that this is how it has always been done. The routing is not, in theory, a complicated concept to understand. It is a bit suspicious that it comes now, and never before. It seems like it could have been a test, and my location has been filed. Alex Jones is warning that big tech has the ability now to selectively shut down IP addresses and web sites - like the Chinese censorship system can already do. He predicts they will deploy the system the day of the election to muzzle the counter narrative when they do the 'official' vote count.

    By the way, how did you get that screen to come up like that?
    Don't always get that screen Ernie, sometimes its just a bunch of text so I could only speculate.

    It would be quite annoying if they block individual IPs, but VPN's or Tor Browser would hopefully circumvent such blocks. I tested TOR with two different ISP Check sites and all results had me in Austria. downnside is it can be quite slow.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Gemma13 (28th October 2020), Harmony (23rd October 2020), Richter (24th October 2020)

  7. Link to Post #264
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    62
    Posts
    4,259
    Thanks
    17,757
    Thanked 25,175 times in 4,002 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    So, if they wanted to, they could route you around the world and slow down your connection that way. Slow connections often drop out of streaming and times out on forums and can freeze on some web sites. That could explain a lot about my internet experiences of late.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Gemma13 (28th October 2020), Harmony (23rd October 2020), Richter (24th October 2020)

  9. Link to Post #265
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,561
    Thanks
    25,505
    Thanked 17,993 times in 2,532 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    I've made sure that we keep an eye on Dr. Simone Gold's feed on Twitter and, again, this time Vimeo are getting in on the act.

    Not surprised of course, but, wow, who isn't now being leant upon?

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  10. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd October 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (22nd October 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (31st October 2020), Ewan (23rd October 2020), Gemma13 (28th October 2020), gord (23rd October 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd October 2020), Harmony (23rd October 2020), onawah (22nd October 2020), Richter (24th October 2020)

  11. Link to Post #266
    United States Avalon Member rgray222's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th September 2010
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    4,517
    Thanked 10,898 times in 1,274 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Big Tech Slept With Communist China And Brought Venereal Censorship Back To America

    Big Tech slept with communist China and brought venereal censorship back home to America. This is why it’s always dangerous to treat one-party authoritarian dictatorships as if they’re as harmless as Canada. If you don’t appreciate the intrinsic threat of governments that ban freedom, then they will spread their despotism faster than you can cure their disease.



    Since Bill Clinton invited China into the World Trade Organization while pretending that the Tiananmen Square massacre never happened, and replaced American manufacturing jobs with China’s slave labor force, the stated foreign policy “dream” was for American society’s freedom and openness to rub off on our old communist foe. Instead, the United States has empowered China’s military might by enriching China with America’s investment wealth, and all Americans received in return was a crappy “Made in China” T-shirt.

    Greedy Washington insiders let Wall Street sellout Main Streets across the country with the fairytale promise that we could buy a future-proof peace with China for the next century. China took Wall Street’s money, smiled while Washington whittled away America’s manufacturing expertise, and bought up America’s debt with U.S. citizens’ own money.

    American globalists committed to undermining our blue-collar labor force for beads and trinkets have ensured the rise of a Chinese superpower that now threatens the equilibrium of peace and security that this great intercontinental transfer of wealth to Asia was supposed to prevent. China’s President Xi Jinping recently told his military to “prepare for war.” Once again, Clinton Democrats and neoconservative Republicans pursued the exact policies necessary to usher in a dangerous decade with the potential for worldwide conflict on the horizon.

    So, what have Americans reaped in return for this debacle? Once proud and self-sufficient towns across America have been wrecked by an industrial exodus that has left a generation of local workers lost, despondent, and alone. Instead of America’s supposed cultural dominance celebrated and coinciding with an expansion of freedom and democracy abroad, the same discarded blue-collar workers get to see American openness recede behind heavy-handed lockdown mandates of Democrat officials, Big Media propaganda, and the torching of free speech at the hands of Silicon Valley’s pirate overlords.

    One of the biggest stories of the 2020 campaign is how Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post’s bombshell story documenting Hunter Biden’s efforts to merchandize his father’s political office for financial gain in Ukraine and China. It paints the picture of a pay-to-play arrangement strenuously denied by Joe Biden for over a year, apparently covered up by an FBI unwilling to pursue investigatory leads dumped in its lap, and transformed into a Trump impeachment by the Schiff-Nadler-Pelosi smear party and their agents in the press.

    Let’s not pretend, however, that the Biden family’s solicitation of Ukraine and Chinese payoffs and the coordinated attacks on free speech by Big Media and Big Tech sprang up unexpectedly in the middle of the night. Washington opened up America’s economy 20 years ago to a corrupt communist regime, and we have been paying the price ever since.

    Our politicians didn’t sell the idea of freedom to China; China simply made corrupt American politicians more corrupt. In the process, American culture has been refashioned to treat China as a friend, while largely ignoring its suppression of free speech, persecution of Christians, and outright murder of political dissidents.

    LeBron James is too young to remember Tiananmen Square, too intentionally ignorant of China’s Holocaust-like sterilizations and genocide against its Uighur citizens, and too well paid by Chinese interests to recognize China’s human rights atrocities as some of the most heinous acts since the Second World War. LeBron can praise communist China while kneeling in protest of the American flag and the freedom it represents because he knows no better. And he knows no better partly because Washington, Wall Street, and our academic elite have pretended for 20 years that Chinese communism is somehow a gentler, more peaceful, free-market kind of communism that Americans can and should get behind.

    It is an awful irony that so many freedom fighters in Hong Kong and Taiwan live each day in the shadow of China’s brute authoritarianism, and American leftists attacking President Trump’s policies geared toward fighting back against the ever-growing threat of a rising China.

    The worst irony of all, however, is that after welcoming China into the global free trade club with all the international privileges once reserved for freedom-loving nations, Americans are increasingly having information actively censored and suppressed by unelected and unaccountable technology companies that have brought an ample dose of China’s authoritarianism back home to the United States.

    We’re now at a point where American tech firms with near-monopoly power and tremendous revenue streams from China can actively censor a breaking news story detailing a presidential candidate’s connection to influence-peddling — in China. There may be a “Manchurian candidate” this election cycle, but those same tech firms have decided that the story should never be told. Who needs to worry about a “Manchurian candidate” when it is clear we have entire “Manchurian industries” playing us for fools?

    Big Tech has been flirting with political censorship for quite some time, but its organized efforts to actively influence an American presidential election by embargoing newsworthy information from being seen by American voters represent a complete embrace of near CCP-levels of censorship. Just as these American tech companies have aided China in “scoring” the “social worthiness” of citizens, they’ve turned their systems of thought crime punishment upon Americans.

    Whatever glossy hopes of spreading American freedom to China existed 20 years ago have backfired spectacularly. American manufacturing lies in tatters, American wealth has been repurposed toward Chinese imperialism, and American tech companies have become ambassadors for Chinese censorship. For Americans who have lost everything from Washington’s ill-advised dance with a communist superpower that wishes us harm, the “Made in China” label looks more like a takeover than a bargain.

    Source: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/22...ck-to-america/

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to rgray222 For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd October 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (23rd October 2020), ClearWater (23rd October 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (31st October 2020), Ewan (24th October 2020), Gemma13 (28th October 2020), Gwin Ru (24th October 2020), Richter (24th October 2020)

  13. Link to Post #267
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,561
    Thanks
    25,505
    Thanked 17,993 times in 2,532 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    More on "Truth About Vaccines" here:

    I've downloaded 8 of what purports to be a 10 part series.

    It'll get done but patience is going to be needed I'm afraid, and definitely by me
    UPDATE - The Truth About Vaccines has now been uploaded to the library and has its own directory, here:

    http://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=The_Truth_About_Vaccines

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd October 2020), ClearWater (23rd October 2020), Ewan (24th October 2020), Gemma13 (28th October 2020), Gwin Ru (24th October 2020), justntime2learn (23rd October 2020), onawah (23rd October 2020), Richter (24th October 2020)

  15. Link to Post #268
    Netherlands Avalon Member
    Join Date
    9th January 2020
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Language
    Dutch
    Posts
    300
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 1,619 times in 291 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    And Then They Came for the Books... (42:34)
    In addition to the online censorship, many real-world libraries have shut down. Is there a secret
    agreement behind these library closures and changes to how we access physical books?
    You Can't Talk and Listen at the Same Time

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Richter For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (25th October 2020), Gemma13 (28th October 2020), Gwin Ru (24th October 2020), rgray222 (25th October 2020), Sue (Ayt) (3rd November 2020)

  17. Link to Post #269
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    13,835
    Thanks
    31,601
    Thanked 62,085 times in 12,341 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Update from Ty & Charlene <info@thetruthaboutvaccines.com>

    Only 7 hours left in the free weekend replay! “Binge watch” while you still can! ;-)
    https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.co...series/replay/


    "If you’ve watched the 10 episodes of TTAV2020, then you’re probably aware that the “powers that be” are trying desperately to “murder” the Bill of Rights and drastically limit our ability to disseminate accurate information on the internet!




    They literally want to get rid of freedom of speech!

    Rest assured, they wouldn’t describe it in those exact terms, but that’s the “nuts and bolts” of what’s going on with blatant censorship of information and their “in your face” plans to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine, when it becomes available.

    Of course, mandating might not even be necessary if they can continue to effectively brainwash the public. Just last week, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus (the general directors of the WHO) tweeted that Cass Sunstein will chair their ‘Technical Advisory Group’ which will be tasked with discussing COVID-19 “vaccine acceptance and uptake.”

    FYI, in 2008, Sunstein wrote a paper proposing that governments employ teams of covert agents to “cognitively infiltrate” online dissident groups and websites which advocate “false conspiracy theories.” So it appears that Sunstein will be focusing on all those “anti-vaxx conspiracy theories” and figuring out ways to brainwash the people into continuing to believe the “safe and effective” nonsense.

    But no matter how hard they try to obscure the truth about vaccines, we know that truth will prevail! It must prevail, especially about vaccines, because vaccines are … well … the biggest public health “experiment” … EVER!

    Don’t be a “vaccine guinea pig” ... And don’t let your kids be guinea pigs either! It’s time to wake up the world and let everyone know the facts (and fictions) about vaccines.

    If you haven’t seen the 2-part “Vaccine Roundtable” then you should take time to watch both of them today. It will really open your eyes to what’s really going on. Here is part 1 https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.co.../roundtable-1/ and here is part 2. https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.co.../roundtable-2/

    Thanks again for taking this journey with us, for standing up against the Big Tech tyrants, and for fighting for health freedom. "

    Yours in liberty and freedom,
    Ty & Charlene
    Last edited by onawah; 25th October 2020 at 22:51.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (25th October 2020), Ewan (26th October 2020), Franny (30th October 2020), Gemma13 (28th October 2020), greybeard (25th October 2020), Gwin Ru (26th October 2020), palehorse (26th October 2020), Sue (Ayt) (3rd November 2020)

  19. Link to Post #270
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    3,603
    Thanks
    6,182
    Thanked 18,464 times in 3,260 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    On PA, can we embed bitchute videos?

    Quote October 23rd, 2020.
    THIS STUFF IS REAL
    Amazing Polly


    I end with some fun.. but first I have to go through the bad part. And that is this: The military is after us, the "journalists" are after us, "Big Tech" is after us, Deep State is after us. I show you exactly how the system is using every means at its disposal for political persecution... and it's not just online personalities they want to get to. It's every single one of us. I talk about the Biden laptop, NBC news doxxing queen, more deplatformings, Steve Bannon with Rudy Guiliani and more. Don't forget to go see the pitch to fund an Emergency Injuction against Google!! details and references below:

    My website. Check the contact page to see how to send something to my PO Box. https://www.amazingpolly.net/

    EMERGENCY INJUCTION GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-b...whistleblowers

    Washington Post on Defeat Disinfo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...101_story.html

    Website Doxxing Trump donors: https://www.nationalistreview.net/20...tion-campaign/

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th October 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (31st October 2020), Franny (30th October 2020), Gwin Ru (27th October 2020), Sue (Ayt) (3rd November 2020)

  21. Link to Post #271
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    24,980
    Thanks
    101,836
    Thanked 316,721 times in 23,471 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quote Posted by Delight (here)
    On PA, can we embed bitchute videos?

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/59gckyDws0ra
    Sure. Just take the last part of the code — in this case, 59gckyDws0ra — paste that into a new paragraph, highlight it to select it, and then click the little Bitchute icon in the formatting menu. (That's this one: )

    The other way is to do it manually, by doing the same thing (copying and pasting 59gckyDws0ra, on its own), and then wrapping the BITCHUTE tags around it, which makes it look like this:

    [BITCHUTE]59gckyDws0ra[/BITCHUTE]


  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    anandacate (28th October 2020), Delight (27th October 2020), Franny (30th October 2020), Gwin Ru (27th October 2020), kudzy (28th October 2020), Yoda (27th October 2020)

  23. Link to Post #272
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,395
    Thanks
    13,126
    Thanked 8,721 times in 1,352 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Delight (here)
    On PA, can we embed bitchute videos?

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/59gckyDws0ra
    Sure. Just take the last part of the code — in this case, 59gckyDws0ra — paste that into a new paragraph, highlight it to select it, and then click the little Bitchute icon in the formatting menu. (That's this one: )

    The other way is to do it manually, by doing the same thing (copying and pasting 59gckyDws0ra, on its own), and then wrapping the BITCHUTE tags around it, which makes it look like this:

    [BITCHUTE]59gckyDws0ra[/BITCHUTE]

    I'd never tried Bitchute, I rarely use any video hosting site, but due to this post I looked it up.

    Wikipedia tells me "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material." Wiki~Bitchute

    And so I learnt something else, I never realised what a hopelessly biased source Wikipedia had become. They've devolved a hell of a lot further in the last few years. A site like Wikipedia, in a decent world, would be totally non-partisan.

    If you look at some of the notes connected to hateful material its an Alice in Wonderland moment.

    Bookmarked Bitchute. Thanks.

  24. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th October 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (29th October 2020), Franny (30th October 2020), Gwin Ru (27th October 2020), Star Mariner (31st October 2020), Sue (Ayt) (3rd November 2020), sunwings (28th October 2020)

  25. Link to Post #273
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    3,603
    Thanks
    6,182
    Thanked 18,464 times in 3,260 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)

    If you haven’t seen the 2-part “Vaccine Roundtable” then you should take time to watch both of them today. It will really open your eyes to what’s really going on.
    The round table was GREAT IMO.

    "Vaccine Roundtable" (Part 1)

    "Vaccine Roundtable" (Part 2)

  26. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th October 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (31st October 2020), Ewan (30th October 2020), Franny (30th October 2020), Gemma13 (29th October 2020), Gwin Ru (27th October 2020), onawah (27th October 2020), Sue (Ayt) (3rd November 2020)

  27. Link to Post #274
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    5,947
    Thanks
    8,383
    Thanked 31,306 times in 5,254 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    MIT Technology Review


    In Machines We Trust - EmTech Stage: Facebook's CTO on Misinformation

    Misinformation and social media have become inseparable from one another; as platforms like Twitter and Facebook have grown to globe-spanning size, so too has the threat posed by the spread of false content. In the midst of a volatile election season in the US and a raging global pandemic, the power of information to alter opinions and save lives (or endanger them) is on full display. In the first of two exclusive interviews with two of the tech world’s most powerful people, Technology Review’s Editor-in-Chief Gideon Lichfield sits down with Facebook CTO Mike Schroepfer to talk about the challenges of combating false and harmful content on an online platform used by billions around the world. This conversation is from the EmTech MIT virtual conference and has been edited for length and clarity.



    In Machines We Trust - EmTech Stage: Twitter's CTO on Misinformation

    In the second of two exclusive interviews, Technology Review’s Editor-in-Chief Gideon Lichfield sat down with Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s Chief Technology officer to discuss the rise of misinformation on the social media platform. Agrawal discusses some of the measures the company has taken to fight back, while admitting Twitter is trying to thread a needle of mitigating harm caused by false content without becoming an arbiter of truth. This conversation is from the EmTech MIT virtual conference and has been edited for clarity.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  28. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (29th October 2020), Bill Ryan (29th October 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (29th October 2020), Ewan (29th October 2020), Franny (30th October 2020), Gemma13 (29th October 2020), Gwin Ru (29th October 2020), Tintin (29th October 2020)

  29. Link to Post #275
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    25th May 2011
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Thanks
    4,286
    Thanked 12,734 times in 1,937 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Cross posting.

    Quote Posted by Franny (here)
    Well, who would have thought it would come to this for Greenwald? He finally quit, perhaps his integrity is rising

    Recall how The Intercept had the Snowden papers which rather quickly were forgotten about and never heard from again with so very few having been published.



    My Resignation From The Intercept

    The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.

    Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

    The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

    The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

    I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.

    The censored article will be published on this page shortly. My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.

    As of now, I will be publishing my journalism here on Substack, where numerous other journalists, including my good friend, the great intrepid reporter Matt Taibbi, have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.

    This was not an easy choice: I am voluntarily sacrificing the support of a large institution and guaranteed salary in exchange for nothing other than a belief that there are enough people who believe in the virtues of independent journalism and the need for free discourse who will be willing to support my work by subscribing.

    Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice. I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.

    But the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept. These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom. I began writing about politics fifteen years ago with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression, and — regardless of the risks involved — simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces me to submit my journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates.

    From the time I began writing about politics in 2005, journalistic freedom and editorial independence have been sacrosanct to me. Fifteen years ago, I created a blog on the free Blogspot software when I was still working as a lawyer: not with any hopes or plans of starting a new career as a journalist, but just as a citizen concerned about what I was seeing with the War on Terror and civil liberties, and wanting to express what I believed needed to be heard. It was a labor of love, based in an ethos of cause and conviction, dependent upon a guarantee of complete editorial freedom.

    It thrived because the readership I built knew that, even when they disagreed with particular views I was expressing, I was a free and independent voice, unwedded to any faction, controlled by nobody, endeavoring to be as honest as possible about what I was seeing, and always curious about the wisdom of seeing things differently. The title I chose for that blog, “Unclaimed Territory,” reflected that spirit of liberation from captivity to any fixed political or intellectual dogma or institutional constraints.

    When Salon offered me a job as a columnist in 2007, and then again when the Guardian did the same in 2012, I accepted their offers on the condition that I would have the right, except in narrowly defined situations (such as articles that could create legal liability for the news outlet), to publish my articles and columns directly to the internet without censorship, advanced editorial interference, or any other intervention permitted or approval needed. Both outlets revamped their publication system to accommodate this condition, and over the many years I worked with them, they always honored those commitments.

    When I left the Guardian at the height of the Snowden reporting in 2013 in order to create a new media outlet, I did not do so, needless to say, in order to impose upon myself more constraints and restrictions on my journalistic independence. The exact opposite was true: the intended core innovation of The Intercept, above all else, was to create a new media outlets where all talented, responsible journalists would enjoy the same right of editorial freedom I had always insisted upon for myself. As I told former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a 2013 exchange we had in The New York Times about my critiques of mainstream journalism and the idea behind The Intercept: “editors should be there to empower and enable strong, highly factual, aggressive adversarial journalism, not to serve as roadblocks to neuter or suppress the journalism.”

    When the three of us as co-founders made the decision early on that we would not attempt to manage the day-to-day operations of the new outlet, so that we could instead focus on our journalism, we negotiated the right of approval for senior editors and, especially the editor-in-chief. The central responsibility of the person holding that title was to implement, in close consultation with us, the unique journalistic vision and journalistic values on which we founded this new media outlet.

    Chief among those values was editorial freedom, the protection of a journalist’s right to speak in an honest voice, and the airing rather than suppression of dissent from mainstream orthodoxies and even collegial disagreements with one another. That would be accomplished, above all else, by ensuring that journalists, once they fulfilled the first duty of factual accuracy and journalistic ethics, would be not just permitted but encouraged to express political and ideological views that deviated from mainstream orthodoxy and those of their own editors; to express themselves in their own voice of passion and conviction rather stuffed into the corporatized, contrived tone of artificial objectivity, above-it-all omnipotence; and to be completely free of anyone else’s dogmatic beliefs or ideological agenda — including those of the three co-founders.

    The current iteration of The Intercept is completely unrecognizable when compared to that original vision. Rather than offering a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives, it is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties, a rigid and narrow range of permitted viewpoints (ranging from establishment liberalism to soft leftism, but always anchored in ultimate support for the Democratic Party), a deep fear of offending hegemonic cultural liberalism and center-left Twitter luminaries, and an overarching need to secure the approval and admiration of the very mainstream media outlets we created The Intercept to oppose, critique and subvert.

    As a result, it is a rare event indeed when a radical freelance voice unwelcome in mainstream precincts is published in The Intercept. Outisde reporters or writers with no claim to mainstream acceptability — exactly the people we set out to amplify — have almost no chance of being published. It is even rarer for The Intercept to publish content that would not fit very comfortably in at least a dozen or more center-left publications of similar size which pre-dated its founding, from Mother Jones to Vox and even MSNBC.

    Courage is required to step out of line, to question and poke at those pieties most sacred in one’s own milieu, but fear of alienating the guardians of liberal orthodoxy, especially on Twitter, is the predominant attribute of The Intercept’s New-York based editorial leadership team. As a result, The Intercept has all but abandoned its core mission of challenging and poking at, rather than appeasing and comforting, the institutions and guardians most powerful in its cultural and political circles.

    Making all of this worse, The Intercept — while gradually excluding the co-founders from any role in its editorial mission or direction, and making one choice after the next to which I vocally objected as a betrayal of our core mission — continued publicly to trade on my name in order to raise funds for journalism it knew I did not support. It purposely allowed the perception to fester that I was the person responsible for its journalistic mistakes in order to ensure that blame for those mistakes was heaped on me rather than the editors who were consolidating control and were responsible for them.

    The most egregious, but by no means only, example of exploiting my name to evade responsibility was the Reality Winner debacle. As The New York Times recently reported, that was a story in which I had no involvement whatsoever. While based in Brazil, I was never asked to work on the documents which Winner sent to our New York newsroom with no request that any specific journalist work on them. I did not even learn of the existence of that document until very shortly prior to its publication. The person who oversaw, edited and controlled that story was Betsy Reed, which was how it should be given the magnitude and complexity of that reporting and her position as editor-in-chief.

    It was Intercept editors who pressured the story’s reporters to quickly send those documents for authentication to the government — because they was eager to prove to mainstream media outlets and prominent liberals that The Intercept was willing to get on board the Russiagate train. They wanted to counter-act the perception, created by my articles expressing skepticism about the central claims of that scandal, that The Intercept had stepped out of line on a story of high importance to U.S. liberalism and even the left. That craving — to secure the approval of the very mainstream media outlets we set out to counteract — was the root cause for the speed and recklessness with which that document from Winner was handled.

    But The Intercept, to this very day, has refused to provide any public accounting of what happened in the Reality Winner story: to explain who the editors were who made mistakes and why any of it happened. As the New York Times article makes clear, that refusal persists to this very day notwithstanding vocal demands from myself, Scahill, Laura Poitras and others that The Intercept, as an institution that demands transparency from others, has the obligation to provide it for itself.

    The reason for this silence and this cover-up is obvious: accounting to the public about what happened with the Reality Winner story would reveal who the actual editors are who are responsible for that deeply embarrassing newsroom failure, and that would negate their ability to continue to hide behind me and let the public continue to assume that I was the person at fault for a reporting process from which I was completely excluded from the start. That is just one example illustrating the frustrating dilemma of having a newsroom exploit my name, work and credibility when it is convenient to do so, while increasingly denying me any opportunity to influence its journalistic mission and editorial direction, all while pursuing an editorial mission completely anathema to what I believe.

    Despite all of this, I did not want to leave The Intercept. As it deteriorated and abandoned its original mission, I reasoned to myself — perhaps rationalized — that as long as The Intercept at least continued to provide me the resources to personally do the journalism I believe in, and never to interfere in or impede my editorial freedom, I could swallow everything else.

    But the brute censorship this week of my article — about the Hunter Biden materials and Joe Biden’s conduct regarding Ukraine and China, as well my critique of the media’s rank-closing attempt, in a deeply unholy union with Silicon Valley and the “intelligence community,” to suppress its revelations — eroded the last justification I could cling to for staying. It meant that not only does this media outlet not provide the editorial freedom to other journalists, as I had so hopefully envisioned seven years ago, but now no longer even provides it to me. In the days heading into a presidential election, I am somehow silenced from expressing any views that random editors in New York find disagreeable, and now somehow have to conform my writing and reporting to cater to their partisan desires and eagerness to elect specific candidates.

    To say that such censorship is a red line for me, a situation I would never accept no matter the cost, is an understatement. It is astonishing to me, but also a reflection of our current discourse and illiberal media environment, that I have been silenced about Joe Biden by my own media outlet.

    Numerous other episodes were also contributing causes to my decision to leave: the Reality Winner cover-up; the decision to hang Lee Fang out to dry and even force him to apologize when a colleague tried to destroy his reputation by publicly, baselessly and repeatedly branding him a racist; its refusal to report on the daily proceedings of the Assange extradition hearing because the freelance reporter doing an outstanding job was politically distasteful; its utter lack of editorial standards when it comes to viewpoints or reporting that flatter the beliefs of its liberal base (The Intercept published some of the most credulous and false affirmations of maximalist Russiagate madness, and, horrifyingly, took the lead in falsely branding the Hunter Biden archive as “Russian disinformation” by mindlessly and uncritically citing — of all things — a letter by former CIA officials that contained this baseless insinuation).

    I know it sounds banal to say, but — even with all of these frustrations and failures — I am leaving, and writing this, with genuine sadness, not fury. That news outlet is something I and numerous close friends and colleagues poured an enormous amount of our time, energy, passion and love into building.

    The Intercept has done great work. Its editorial leaders and First Look’s managers steadfastly supported the difficult and dangerous reporting I did last year with my brave young colleagues at The Intercept Brasil to expose corruption at the highest levels of the Bolsonaro government, and stood behind us as we endured threats of death and imprisonment.

    It continues to employ some of my closest friends, outstanding journalists whose work — when it overcomes editorial resistance — produces nothing but the highest admiration from me: Jeremy Scahill, Lee Fang, Murtaza Hussain, Naomi Klein, Ryan Grim and others. And I have no personal animus for anyone there, nor any desire to hurt it as an institution. Betsy Reed is an exceptionally smart editor and a very good human being with whom I developed a close and valuable friendship. And Pierre Omidyar, the original funder and publisher of First Look, always honored his personal commitment never to interfere in our editorial process even when I was publishing articles directly at odds with his strongly held views and even when I was attacking other institutions he was funding. I’m not leaving out of vengeance or personal conflict but out of conviction and cause.

    And none of the critiques I have voiced about The Intercept are unique to it. To the contrary: these are the raging battles over free expression and the right of dissent raging within every major cultural, political and journalistic institution. That’s the crisis that journalism, and more broadly values of liberalism, faces. Our discourse is becoming increasingly intolerant of dissenting views, and our culture is demanding more and more submission to prevailing orthodoxies imposed by self-anointed monopolists of Truth and Righteousness, backed up by armies of online enforcement mobs.

    And nothing is crippled by that trend more severely than journalism, which, above all else, requires the ability of journalists to offend and anger power centers, question or reject sacred pieties, unearth facts that reflect negatively even on (especially on) the most beloved and powerful figures, and highlight corruption no matter where it is found and regardless of who is benefited or injured by its exposure.

    Prior to the extraordinary experience of being censored this week by my own news outlet, I had already been exploring the possibility of creating a new media outlet. I have spent a couple of months in active discussions with some of the most interesting, independent and vibrant journalists, writers and commentators across the political spectrum about the feasibility of securing financing for a new outlet that would be designed to combat these trends. The first two paragraphs of our working document reads as follows:

    American media is gripped in a polarized culture war that is forcing journalism to conform to tribal, groupthink narratives that are often divorced from the truth and cater to perspectives that are not reflective of the broader public but instead a minority of hyper-partisan elites. The need to conform to highly restrictive, artificial cultural narratives and partisan identities has created a repressive and illiberal environment in which vast swaths of news and reporting either do not happen or are presented through the most skewed and reality-detached lens.

    With nearly all major media institutions captured to some degree by this dynamic, a deep need exists for media that is untethered and free to transgress the boundaries of this polarized culture war and address a demand from a public that is starved for media that doesn’t play for a side but instead pursues lines of reporting, thought, and inquiry wherever they lead, without fear of violating cultural pieties or elite orthodoxies.

    I have definitely not relinquished hope that this ambitious project can be accomplished. And I theoretically could have stayed at The Intercept until then, guaranteeing a stable and secure income for my family by swallowing the dictates of my new censors.

    But I would be deeply ashamed if I did that, and believe I would be betraying my own principles and convictions that I urge others to follow. So in the meantime, I have decided to follow in the footsteps of numerous other writers and journalists who have been expelled from increasingly repressive journalistic precincts for various forms of heresy and dissent and who have sought refuge here.

    I hope to exploit the freedom this new platform offers not only to continue to publish the independent and hard-hitting investigative journalism and candid analysis and opinion writing that my readers have come to expect, but also to develop a podcast, and continue the YouTube program, “System Update,” I launched earlier this year in partnership with The Intercept.

    To do that, to make this viable, I will need your support: people who are able to subscribe and sign up for the newsletter attached to this platform will enable my work to thrive and still be heard, perhaps even more so than before. I began my journalism career by depending on my readers’ willingness to support independent journalism which they believe is necessary to sustain. It is somewhat daunting at this point in my life, but also very exciting, to return to that model where one answers only to the public a journalist should be serving.


    LETTER OF INTENT TO RESIGN

    -------- Forwarded Message --------

    Subject: ResignationDate: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 10:20:54 -0300From: Glenn Greenwald <xxxxxxxx@theintercept.com>To: Michael Bloom <xxxxxxxxx@firstlook.media>, Betsy Reed <xxxxxxx@theintercept.com>

    Michael -

    I am writing to advise you that I have decided that I will be resigning from First Look Media (FLM) and The Intercept.

    The precipitating (but by no means only) cause is that The Intercept is attempting to censor my articles in violation of both my contract and fundamental principles of editorial freedom. The latest and perhaps most egregious example is an opinion column I wrote this week which, five days before the presidential election, is critical of Joe Biden, the candidate who happens to be vigorously supported by all of the Intercept editors in New York who are imposing the censorship and refusing to publish the article unless I agree to remove all of the sections critical of the candidate they want to win. All of that violates the right in my contract with FLM to publish articles without editorial interference except in very narrow circumstances that plainly do not apply here.

    Worse, The Intercept editors in New York, not content to censor publication of my article at the Intercept, are also demanding that I not exercise my separate contractual right with FLM regarding articles I have written but which FLM does not want to publish itself. Under my contract, I have the right to publish any articles FLM rejects with another publication. But Intercept editors in New York are demanding I not only accept their censorship of my article at The Intercept, but also refrain from publishing it with any other journalistic outlet, and are using thinly disguised lawyer-crafted threats to coerce me not to do so (proclaiming it would be “detrimental” to The Intercept if I published it elsewhere).

    I have been extremely disenchanted and saddened by the editorial direction of The Intercept under its New York leadership for quite some time. The publication we founded without those editors back in 2014 now bears absolutely no resemblance to what we set out to build -- not in content, structure, editorial mission or purpose. I have grown embarrassed to have my name used as a fund-raising tool to support what it is doing and for editors to use me as a shield to hide behind to avoid taking responsibility for their mistakes (including, but not only, with the Reality Winner debacle, for which I was publicly blamed despite having no role in it, while the editors who actually were responsible for those mistakes stood by silently, allowing me to be blamed for their errors and then covering-up any public accounting of what happened, knowing that such transparency would expose their own culpability).

    But all this time, as things worsened, I reasoned that as long as The Intercept remained a place where my own right of journalistic independence was not being infringed, I could live with all of its other flaws. But now, not even that minimal but foundational right is being honored for my own journalism, suppressed by an increasingly authoritarian, fear-driven, repressive editorial team in New York bent on imposing their own ideological and partisan preferences on all writers while ensuring that nothing is published at The Intercept that contradicts their own narrow, homogenous ideological and partisan views: exactly what The Intercept, more than any other goal, was created to prevent.

    I have asked my lawyer to get in touch with FLM to discuss how best to terminate my contract. Thank you -

    Glenn Greenwald

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gemma13 For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (1st November 2020), Sue (Ayt) (3rd November 2020)

  31. Link to Post #276
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    5,947
    Thanks
    8,383
    Thanked 31,306 times in 5,254 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Former Google Design Ethicist Tristan Harris helped develop technology that guides the thoughts and behavior of billions of people worldwide. Now he's the president of the Center for Human Technology: a nonprofit organization devoted to realigning technology with humanity. You can learn more about the Center and its mission in the Netflix Documentary The Social Dilemma.




    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  32. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (1st November 2020), Ewan (1st November 2020), Gemma13 (31st October 2020), Gwin Ru (30th October 2020), Sue (Ayt) (3rd November 2020)

  33. Link to Post #277
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    5,947
    Thanks
    8,383
    Thanked 31,306 times in 5,254 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    BBC World Service - Tech Tent - Senators accuse big tech of bias

    + other news, including Microsoft's booming time, Trump website defacement, more data harvesting companies.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (1st November 2020), Gemma13 (31st October 2020), Gwin Ru (30th October 2020)

  35. Link to Post #278
    Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,469
    Thanks
    14,174
    Thanked 18,803 times in 2,390 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Can you imagine if this was the other way round, and it was Women for Biden?

    We all have our strong suspicions of Big Tech. They sit on the dark side of the divide, that is for certain. So when they push one candidate while suppressing the other, that is your strongest tell for what side that candidate is sitting on.

    N.J. Women For Trump group, with 29K members, removed from Facebook days before election
    Updated Nov 01, 2020; Posted Oct 31, 2020

    On Saturday morning there were more than 29,000 members in a private Facebook group for New Jersey women who support President Trump — and by Saturday afternoon the group was gone.

    Priscilla Confrey, co-director of New Jersey Women For Trump, says Facebook did not send her any notifications about the removal or explain why the group was removed.

    Facebook did not immediately respond to an inquiry from NJ Advance Media about the removal.

    Even President Trump jumped into the fracas, tweeting at Facebook to reinstate the group.

    More: https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/10/...-election.html

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (1st November 2020), Ewan (1st November 2020), Gemma13 (2nd November 2020), justntime2learn (1st November 2020), Tintin (1st November 2020)

  37. Link to Post #279
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,561
    Thanks
    25,505
    Thanked 17,993 times in 2,532 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quelle surprise.................

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  38. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    avid (3rd November 2020), Bill Ryan (3rd November 2020), Gwin Ru (3rd November 2020), justntime2learn (3rd November 2020), norman (3rd November 2020), Star Mariner (3rd November 2020)

  39. Link to Post #280
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,561
    Thanks
    25,505
    Thanked 17,993 times in 2,532 posts

    Default Re: Internet Censorship: So it began...

    Quote Posted by Tintin (here)
    Quelle surprise.................

    Although still on her own website of course, now reinstated, here:

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  40. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (3rd November 2020), justntime2learn (3rd November 2020), norman (3rd November 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst 1 4 14 16 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts