+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst 1 11
Results 201 to 217 of 217

Thread: Internet Censorship: So it began...

  1. Link to Post #201
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    373
    Thanked 4,589 times in 1,003 posts

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

    Quote Posted by RunningDeer (here)
    Quote Posted by TomKat (here)
    Looks like you're not getting the latest 3 episodes either...
    Current Keiser Report Playlist without signing in.

    OK. Guess I have to go directly to their channel. I used to just do a search and it would give me the latest, followed by the next to the latest, etc. But now if I search for it, I just get the old ones. And that's a form of censorship, same as they do on the Google search engine.

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

    Bill Ryan (17th March 2020), Pam (27th January 2020)

  3. Link to Post #202
    Avalon Member cannawizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st January 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    39
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 96 times in 19 posts

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

    “I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet,” -- funny hearing that from the land where revolution/rebellion took root in the modern age~



  4. The Following User Says Thank You to cannawizard For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th March 2020)

  5. Link to Post #203
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,816 times in 11,197 posts

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

    GOOGLE WHISTLEBLOWER TELLS ALL
    Feb 10, 2020
    The HighWire with Del Bigtree
    67.8K subscribers

    "Zach Vorhies, former Google engineer-turned-whistleblower, joins Del in-studio where he reveals what he found while working there, and why he had to sound the alarm on the tech giant."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    AutumnW (31st May 2020), Bill Ryan (17th March 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  7. Link to Post #204
    Netherlands Avalon Member
    Join Date
    9th January 2020
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Language
    Dutch
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 805 times in 169 posts

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

    UK Government Approves Net Censorship – British Free Speech Dies
    by Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/14/2020

    The United Kingdom has become the first Western nation to move ahead with large-scale censorship of the internet,
    effectively creating regulation that will limit freedom on the last frontier of digital liberty. In a move that has the nation
    reeling, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has unveiled rules that will punish internet companies with fines, & even imprison-
    ment, if they fail to protect users from 'harmful and illegal content.'

    CONTINUE: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ee-speech-dies

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

    Bill Ryan (17th March 2020), Franny (10th March 2020), Tintin (22nd May 2020)

  9. Link to Post #205
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,816 times in 11,197 posts

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

    Vimeo censors my interview, in which Catherine Austin Fitts and I discuss coronavirus and vaccines
    Vimeo also removed another Fitts interview with a distinguished attorney, on the subject of mandated vaccines
    They’re meddling with you, and deciding for you
    by Jon Rappoport
    March 9, 2020
    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020...-and-vaccines/
    Or see: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1339912
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Bill Ryan (17th March 2020), Franny (10th March 2020), Tintin (24th May 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  11. Link to Post #206
    United States Avalon Member Ayt's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd December 2016
    Language
    English
    Posts
    355
    Thanks
    2,675
    Thanked 2,498 times in 349 posts

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

    It actually appears that the extreme censorship on Google may have been lifted late last night.

    I did some searches for "forbidden" subjects and people, and they are actually coming up on the first page.
    For example, I typed in "miles mathis on charles manson". Mathis has been censored for a long time.
    I also tried "Dr. Mercola", and his site and picture pop right up as #1.
    Just tried "Catherine Austin Fitts". She pops right up too, along with her videos.
    "We're all bozos on this bus"

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ayt For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th March 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  13. Link to Post #207
    United States Avalon Member Ayt's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd December 2016
    Language
    English
    Posts
    355
    Thanks
    2,675
    Thanked 2,498 times in 349 posts

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

    Very strange, whatever is happening on Google.
    Typed in "Bill Ryan", and Bill - your picture pops up right away, but with the wrong wikipedia bio.
    Check it out!

    edit to add - Can't believe that "China will catch a cold" is the first video that comes up!
    "We're all bozos on this bus"

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ayt For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th March 2020), Chester (17th March 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  15. Link to Post #208
    United States Avalon Member Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,609
    Thanks
    32,013
    Thanked 29,244 times in 5,239 posts

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

    It seems this was posted yesterday -



    Understand, I don't always catch everything... especially something from prior to 2012... "wow!"

    Note that this was the third video down the list in what Google returned to me.
    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (21st May 2020), Tintin (22nd May 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  17. Link to Post #209
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    250
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,529 times in 240 posts

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

    What critical thinking? Wayback Machine is now complicit in Big Tech censorship

    RT
    19 May, 2020 17:50


    © SOPA Images via Getty Images / Rafael Henrique

    By Elliot Leavy, former editor of the technology and innovation magazine maize and editor of culture magazine BOZO. He has written for numerous publications around the world focussing on technology, belief systems, and culture.

    The webpage archive service Wayback Machine’s decision to additionally label already-deleted articles as ‘disinformation’ is internet history revisionism that comes at a time when critical thinking is desperately needed.

    Earlier this month, Wayback Machine took heed of MIT Technology Review’s protests that they are breathing life into debunked coronavirus ‘hoaxes’, and took to retroactively labelling past web pages and content removed from their original pages with warnings decrying the information presented as false.

    The pages in question come from popular platforms such as Medium which, in theory, were launched to allow users to create content without it being editorialised by the powers that be. By redefining content after it has already been removed, Wayback Machine is adding a level of editorialisation atop of another — adding insult to injury by obfuscating original messages and overlaying them with a warning of disinformation. Disinformation being defined as misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive.




    Throughout the big tech sphere, this is nothing new: censorship by the new arbiters of truth is now the norm. However, with coronavirus in full swing, the mission creep toward mass-censorship has become more of a lurch. We are no longer allowed to critically think for ourselves. Instead we are offered one of three options: information, misinformation or disinformation, with the latter hidden away from view lest we get any bad ideas. Nuance, in effect, is no longer an option.

    The obvious problem here is that conflicting information surrounding the virus is as widespread as the virus itself. When the world is full of unknowns, who is to say what is and is not disinformation, and where honest miscalculation or tentative prediction ends and malicious intent begins? Why is it that some opinions are removed, whilst others — some proven to be incorrect — are not?

    For example, at the end of last month, research collated by the paediatric blog Don’t Forget The Bubbles, together with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), found that, globally, there is no evidence of children having passed Covid-19 to adults, and that children have much less severe symptoms and often do not have any at all.

    Despite this fact, reports across some media outlets in the UK have parroted teacher unions’ cries that it is “Not safe to reopen schools.” Contrary to the evidence then, is this not disinformation? The unions of course have an agenda, so why is this information not labelled as disinformation? Or at the bare minimum, misinformation?

    Then there is the tweet by the World Health Organisation published in January that stated that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.” Two months later, the WHO declared a global pandemic. At the time of writing, there is still no signalling that this was, in fact, deeply incorrect. Why has it not been removed and/or changed? Was this not disinformation?

    The list goes on. In February, Forbes quoted a doctor who claimed that wearing masks would in fact increase the chances of transmitting the virus. If one today uses the Wayback Machine internet archiving service on the Forbes article in question, there lies no mark of shame decrying it as a hoax, which begs the question, why not? It is possible to read this as at least misinformation if you ignore intent; so why the difference in standards? Are the results not the same?

    The answer, one must assume, has nothing to do with what is or is not true. Instead, it seems that this censorship presumes nefariousness upon some, whilst assuming ignorance in others. It is not only the content that is being judged — else the WHO tweet would have been removed or at least labelled — but the author. Gone are the days where we did not shoot the messenger, now both him and the message are fair game.

    By towing the censorship line like it has, Wayback Machine — which has offered a valuable service up until this point — is now complicit. The division and disparity in the enforced rules between different voices reveals that behind the mask lies an agenda.

    By tarnishing some — but not all — voices with the disinformation brush, much of the media, academia, and (predominantly) big tech are putting ideological allegiances before anything else. Now, as ever, is not the time for that. Once we know more, we can evaluate what is wrong and what is right. However, if we continue to censor the past, attaching intent to some but not to others, we will be unable to evaluate anything at all.

  18. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    anandacate (24th May 2020), Bill Ryan (21st May 2020), earthdreamer (25th May 2020), East Sun (24th May 2020), Franny (24th May 2020), Gemma13 (25th May 2020), Harmony (25th May 2020), norman (24th May 2020), Tintin (22nd May 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  19. Link to Post #210
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    5,375
    Thanks
    7,828
    Thanked 26,344 times in 4,686 posts

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

    Joe Rogan is going to war with big tech media in September, his first 2 guests on his new Spotify show will be Alex Jones and Elon Musk.


    https://banned.video/watch?id=5ec5f625c7d2dc0030369125






    edit:


    I've got a couple of questions on my radar since posting that:

    Will Rogan live until September ?

    What if Soros and the gang buy a controlling share in Spotify?
    Last edited by norman; 22nd May 2020 at 04:27.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  20. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    anandacate (24th May 2020), Bill Ryan (21st May 2020), Franny (24th May 2020), Gwin Ru (24th May 2020), Harmony (25th May 2020), meeradas (24th May 2020), RunningDeer (24th May 2020), Sadieblue (25th May 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  21. Link to Post #211
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    250
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,529 times in 240 posts

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

    Google Drive takes down user's personal copy of Judy Mikovits' Plandemic previously flagged by Washington Post

    Tom Parker
    Reclaim the Net
    Wed, 20 May 2020 09:03 UTC


    © YouTube/Buzzfeednews.com/KJN

    Google is now applying its controversial coronavirus misinformation policies to users' personal files. Ever since Big Tech platforms started cracking down on what they deem to be coronavirus misinformation, the media has been willfully flagging alleged violations to social media companies and getting content taken down.

    And now the file storage and sharing service Google Drive has started to take down users' files in response to media complaints about them containing coronavirus misinformation.

    In an article reporting on the takedown, The Washington Post's Silicon Valley Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin complains that after the coronavirus documentary Plandemic was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access "banned footage" from the documentary via Google Drive.

    She then notes that after The Washington Post contacted Google, Google Drive took down a file featuring the trailer for the Plandemic documentary.

    Dwoskin frames users sharing files containing the Plandemic trailer with each other as:
    "A wave of seemingly countless workarounds employed by people motivated to spread misinformation about the virus — efforts that continue to thwart social media companies' attempts at preventing hoaxes and conspiracy theories from spreading amid the greatest public health crisis in decades."
    Dwoskin also writes that The Washington Post reported 12 videos to YouTube, 61 Facebook posts and Instagram links to Facebook, and 24 videos to TikTok for featuring the Plandemic trailer.

    In response, YouTube removed five of the videos, Facebook removed nine of the posts, and TikTok said it removed most of the videos.

    The Plandemic trailer isn't the only file that's been censored on Google Drive in recent months.

    After SpaceX and Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk linked to what Dwoskin describes as a "questionable study" about the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine in March, Google blocked access to the document.


    Elon Musk © Mike Blake/Reuters

    For many Google Drive users, the service is their only file storage solution and they use it to save copies of videos and posts that have been deleted or censored on other platforms.

    If this precedent continues, it could mean these users have their only copy of content that has been scrubbed from social media platforms taken down because they shared a link to those files with other people.

    According to Google Drive's policies, distributing what Google deems to be "misleading content related to civic and democratic processes," "misleading content related to harmful health practices," "manipulated media" is prohibited with possible exceptions when the content is used in an "educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context."

    Google "doesn't go into details" about how those policies are enforced" or whether it scans files to ensure compliance.

    The takedown of the Plandemic file is reflective of the increasingly aggressive moderation standards big tech companies are employing when it comes to what users are allowed to say about the coronavirus.

    At first, these strict moderation standards applied to public posts on their social media platforms.

    Now just a few months after these policies were introduced, these big tech companies are already starting to dictate which documents and files users are allowed to share with others and taking down the files when users don't comply.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The importance of the Avalon Library is skyrocketing... and it better be well protected from all directions.

  22. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    anandacate (24th May 2020), Bill Ryan (24th May 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (24th May 2020), earthdreamer (25th May 2020), East Sun (24th May 2020), Franny (24th May 2020), Gemma13 (25th May 2020), Harmony (25th May 2020), meeradas (24th May 2020), Mercedes (24th May 2020), RunningDeer (24th May 2020), Sadieblue (25th May 2020), Tintin (24th May 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  23. Link to Post #212
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,064
    Thanks
    21,409
    Thanked 13,628 times in 2,043 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

    The importance of the Avalon Library is skyrocketing... and it better be well protected from all directions.
    Thank you

    Yes, we are very well aware of that and rest assured everything is backed up securely in multiple places

    A kindly well meant urgent reminder to ALL:


    For your own records: please do NOT use cloud storage services as your only method of backing up files. or at all, if that can be avoided. Invest in a laptop computer - don't rely on a smartphone for everything you do - and buy at least one or preferably more external hard drives on which you store facsimiles/copies of everything. Yours, Tintin
    .
    “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

  24. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    anandacate (24th May 2020), Bill Ryan (24th May 2020), ClearWater (24th May 2020), earthdreamer (25th May 2020), East Sun (24th May 2020), Gemma13 (25th May 2020), gord (25th May 2020), greybeard (24th May 2020), Gwin Ru (24th May 2020), Harmony (25th May 2020), Keyholder (24th May 2020), kfm27917 (25th May 2020), meeradas (24th May 2020), Mercedes (24th May 2020), norman (24th May 2020), RunningDeer (24th May 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  25. Link to Post #213
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    5,375
    Thanks
    7,828
    Thanked 26,344 times in 4,686 posts

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

    External hard drives are vanishing from the retail market place. For 12 months there have been lots of obvious signs that the big retailers were clearing their stock.


    The current "Food Only" policy is as good as already gone, actually. It feels a bit like a war tactic.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  26. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    anandacate (24th May 2020), Bill Ryan (24th May 2020), East Sun (24th May 2020), gord (25th May 2020), greybeard (24th May 2020), Gwin Ru (24th May 2020), Harmony (25th May 2020), meeradas (24th May 2020), Mercedes (24th May 2020), Tintin (25th May 2020), Yvanka (27th May 2020)

  27. Link to Post #214
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    250
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,529 times in 240 posts

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

    Anyone heard about this?

    It seems that finally a spanner was just thrown in:

    Video Anglo 5 Headline News Opinions

    BREAKING: FULL TEXT – TRUMP PLACES YOUTUBE TWITTER FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM – UNDER PUBLIC CONTROL

    Trump Decrees that these are part of the 'Public Square'

    By FRN Editorial Board

    Last updated May 30, 2020

    May 29, 2020 – Late in the day on May 28th, 2020 Donald Trump announced and signed an Executive Order titled ‘Preventing Online Censorship‘.

    As an independent, citizen journalism outfit, FRN fully endorses President Trump’s bold move in the direction of digital democracy and protecting speech. As our world and our lives become more digitized, with more time online, our existences themselves become more digitized. Democratic rights within a constitutional republic cannot stop when we turn our computers on. The virtual sphere of social media is absolutely the new public sphere, and must be a commons that all can enjoy and express themselves, exchange ideas and pertinent information, to challenge authority and speak truth to power.

    A decade ago it would have been unthinkable that a Republican administration would carry out such a sweeping reform in this direction. Given the massive events over the last few years, no new things really surprise us anymore, even though they are no less amazing.

    We look forward to this new era of digital freedoms, and we support the efforts of AG Barr, and those in the Congress who will move proactively in support of this undoubtedly popular and timely EO.

    In a careful reading of the Order, below, it is clear about two main points that other media has failed to interpret, however, which indeed justifies our very headline.
    • The social media giants named, act as essentially features of the public square. This is a tremendous statement to include in the preambulatory remarks, because it has democratized social media.
    • Social media will be treated as a publisher if they publish, and as a platform if they platform. In either event, they must either give fair hearing to a robust debate or they must simply not censor self-publishers (users). This places them, either way, under a public control that forces them to be avenues used by the public in the public interest.
    Fox News in the US broadcast most all of the president’s presentation of the Order.

    Below it is the full text.

    FRN EDITORIAL BOARD
    PREVENTING ONLINE CENSORSHIP
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
    .
    Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
    .
    In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
    .
    The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
    Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
    .
    As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
    .
    Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
    .
    Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called “Site Integrity” has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
    .
    At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
    .
    As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
    .
    Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
    .
    Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
    .
    In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
    .
    (b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
    .
    (i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
    .
    (ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
    .
    (A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
    .
    (B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
    .
    (iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
    .


    Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
    .
    (b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
    .
    (c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
    .
    Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
    .
    (b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
    .
    (c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
    .
    (d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
    .
    Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
    .
    (b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
    (i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
    .
    (ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
    .
    (iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
    .
    (iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media
    organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
    .
    (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
    .
    Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
    .
    Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
    .
    Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    .
    (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    .
    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    .
    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
    .
    DONALD J. TRUMP
    .
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    May 28, 2020.

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (30th May 2020), ClearWater (30th May 2020), greybeard (30th May 2020), Harmony (31st May 2020), Philippe (30th May 2020)

  29. Link to Post #215
    France Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th February 2019
    Location
    South of France
    Language
    French
    Age
    66
    Posts
    159
    Thanks
    1,526
    Thanked 929 times in 154 posts

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

    And here are the Health Ranger views on what has happened. Dramatic times ask for dramatic statements. But this one is not an exaggeration in announcing a game changing : Prepare for a mass uprising… it’s time to tear down the Berlin Wall of censorship and free humanity

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-05-...ensorship.html

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

    Bill Ryan (30th May 2020), East Sun (30th May 2020), Gwin Ru (30th May 2020), Harmony (31st May 2020)

  31. Link to Post #216
    United States Moderator Sarah Rainsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2020
    Location
    Hi y'all!
    Language
    English
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    3,446
    Thanked 2,422 times in 291 posts

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

    Has anyone noticed how TikTok is being attacked? Now, maybe they really are that bad and a true security risk and deserve every bit of the negative coverage and warnings and such. I don't know. I don't have TikTok.

    But I do know it's one of the newest apps that the younger generation (those under 30) use. And many in that younger generations don't follow the traditional media outlets. They follow social media apps like TikTok (not Facebook, sorry, that's for us old folks). With apps like this and SnapChat and others, it's very easy to quickly record and share videos, which makes it more difficult for the elites to control the narrative.

    So is TikTok being challenged because it's a true security risk? Or is it being challenged because it's not being controlled by the elites?

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sarah Rainsong For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th July 2020), Richter (10th July 2020)

  33. Link to Post #217
    Netherlands Avalon Member
    Join Date
    9th January 2020
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Language
    Dutch
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 805 times in 169 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Sarah Rainsong (here)
    Has anyone noticed how TikTok is being attacked? Now, maybe they really are that bad and a true security risk and deserve every bit of the negative coverage and warnings and such. I don't know. I don't have TikTok.

    But I do know it's one of the newest apps that the younger generation (those under 30) use. And many in that younger generations don't follow the traditional media outlets. They follow social media apps like TikTok (not Facebook, sorry, that's for us old folks). With apps like this and SnapChat and others, it's very easy to quickly record and share videos, which makes it more difficult for the elites to control the narrative.

    So is TikTok being challenged because it's a true security risk? Or is it being challenged because it's not being controlled by the elites?
    Anonymous Hackers Target TikTok: ‘Delete This Chinese Spyware Now’ (6:23)
    This has been a week that TikTok — the Chinese viral video giant that has soared under lockdown
    — will want to put quickly behind it. The ByteDance-owned platform was under fire anyway, over
    allegations of data mishandling and censorship, but then a beta version of Apple’s iOS 14 caught
    the app secretly accessing users’ clipboards and a backlash immediately followed.
    You Can't Talk and Listen at the Same Time

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Richter For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th July 2020), Sarah Rainsong (10th July 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst 1 11

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