Tracking ID UA-126977798-1
Recently, the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau reaffirmed one of his proposals to fund "digital charters" for the media he approves of with a money pot of $660 Million of Canadian taxpayer's hard earned cash. The demonetization, de-platforming and trolling of news that reveals embarrassing truths, conservative viewpoints and investigations are not enough of a check in his view; Trudeau goes for outright censorship by the largest companies who have an overt, proven bias-Facehook, Twitter, Youtube-which, he states, will have a "private agreement" with the Canadian government regarding censoring "disinformation" and "hate speech" as well as "toxic communication" posted online. www.therebel.media/justin-trudeau-news-media-bailout-censorship-unifor-journalism-ezra-levant-show-may-23-2019
This means these large multinational companies will receive a monetary incentive to "police" other competitors and potential competitors for an audience/clicks. We don't know the exact terms of these "digital charters" because they have not been made public or published.
Of course one group's idea of "toxic communication" is another group's conviction of the same communication as "the truth". Cultural "content" can be deemed as "hate speech" by a different culture, and freedom of expression is suppressed by the "social media monitors" hired to police the cyber platforms for us, the citizens. A very dangerous precedent and one that is already in play in strictly controlled countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from government censorship. However, social media platforms are private companies, and currently they can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit. Yet given their growing role in public discourse, it’s important to ask–what exactly are their censorship policies? How do they compare to each other, and to the First Amendment’s protections? Who oversees their decisions? How do they benefit financially or with leverage by their censorship? Are they monopolies on the cyber-public forum which should be broken up or held accountable as a publisher and not just a company?! Important questions which still have not been addressed consistently to government officials, policy makers or to the social media addicted public. How do we ensure that we have the diverse viewpoints on any event/issue and that the narrative is informed by verifiable facts and deliberate falsehoods and misinformation is revealed and those responsible are given punitive consequences either in fines, firing or jail time.
This week I shall discuss a few of these pressing questions and cite a personal example of being "restricted" from a social media platform with no reason given and no warning. I am in "good company" considering some of the more visible and vocal personalities already censored from most social media platforms. A few of them are shown below as examples of prominent voices censored on social media.
"With legal and legislative solutions ineffectual for preserving free speech online, enter the major antitrust enforcement agencies of the executive branch. The Department of Justice is preparing to investigate Google’s parent company, Alphabet, while the Federal Trade Commission is doing the same for Facebook. The goal may be to break the tech giants into multiple smaller companies, as was done at the dawn of mass electronic communication in America." www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/break-social-media-companies-protect-free-speech
We earnestly hope that antitrust cases will soon be brought against Alphabet-which is the Google 'parent' company with over 200 companies in it's 'family' of " Other Bets" including: Google, Goog, Youtube, Uber, Nestlabs, Google maps/surveillance products, Clouds, Titan Aerospace, DeepMind, Project Dragonfly and Skynet (Social credit system used in China and other countries) Sidewalk labs (used as part of urban planning) Google Fiber (lines of communication and equipment) Android, subsidiaries creating and selling pharmaceuticals, experimental cars, drones, ISR, mail, investment companies, "smart fabric", appliances, etc. This is a classic example of one gargantuan company controlling vertical and horizontal means of R&D, production, marketing, distribution and competition. They need to be divested, monitored and regulated. www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-company-list-2017-4#googles-hardware-division-was-formed-in-2016-when-google-hired-former-motorola-president-rick-osterloh-osterloh-was-put-in-charge-of-pixel-phones-google-home-chromebooks-and-revamping-google-glass-osterloh-reports-directly-to-sundar-pichai-21
Alphabet/Google maintains a close relationship with social media giants Facebook/Instagram. It often follows if Facebook decides to shut down an account-youtube will follow with demonetization and other de-platform measures including pressuring Twitter and Paypal to detach any support from such individuals and organizations. Cases in point: Alex Jones, Lara Loomer, Michelle Malkin and Milo Yiannopoulus as well as Joe Rogan. Watch this video for an explanation of the constantly changing AI (artificial intelligence) parameters for "demonetizing" - extremely arbitrary: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFyHpBsvcK0
Facebook is known for it's extreme left slant and a very narrow corridor for ideas. It is a bully in the social media arena wielding it's whip to corral other tech media companies into their "line of thought policing".
A former senior Facebook engineer who wrote a memo earlier this year decrying the social media giant's "political monoculture", said that the company (Facebook) has a "vocal minority" intent on implementing social justice policies across it's mission. "You can't even have conversations about that policy inside the company without having your character attacked -- and I've experienced this personally -- without being called a sexist or a racist or a transphobe or an Islamophobe," said Amerige. Amerige drew national attention when he wrote an internal memo, "We Have a Problem With Political Diversity." The memo, which was later leaked to The New York Times, stated that: Facebook employees "claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology." www.technocracynews/category/resistance/page/4/?print=pdf-search
Entrenched in the corporate culture of these media monoliths are a few individuals who steer the narratives presented to the global population. They are based on their personal political/value system and not on the "truth" or on an amalgamation of analysis based on facts. This is outright propaganda with sophisticated technology and brutal competition shutdown on other companies, organizations and individuals with no alternative, no other companies to use as platforms at present. These companies are forcing "group think" in a monopolistic strategy on a global level.
A smaller, albeit different platform on social media is Linkedin. This company professes to host a free platform for "professionals" to network, solicit employees, jobs and useful information. Officially this is what is posted on their website: "The mission of LinkedIn is simple: connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful." However, they too can arbitrarily decide who they will permit and restrict on their platform. Look at their "Who Are We?" section: Jeff Weiner is the CEO of the company, and management includes experienced executives from companies such as Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, TiVo, PayPal and Electronic Arts.
Jeff Weiner worked at Yahoo and decided to sell LinkedIn to Microsoft in 2016, only eight years after starting at LinkedIn as interim president. www.vox.com/2016/6/13/11920416/linkedin-acquisition-microsoft-reasons He boasts about China and the Chinese as his greatest potential clients. But Chinese businesses are all People's Republic of China (Communist) affiliated and carry tight strings attached to whomever they do business with - including demanding political "correctness" and posting according to their communist party dictates. What happens when certain "complaints" are lodged to LinkedIn by Chinese communist members who by sheer numbers could out pace any other nationality of professionals on this platform?
A move toward a dictatorship of cyber and social media platforms is creeping into nations which fought long and hard to establish and maintain a constitutional Republic and/or Democracy with freedom of expression as a founding tenet. This "mission creep" needs to be stopped forthwith. It is imperative that a diverse selection of perspective and opinion is able to be expressed for full spectrum thinking and innovation to thrive again. Money is buying or denying platforms since companies, especially country affiliated (Communist countries) and multinational corporations have no social conscience and no incentive to share their leverage or power.
Caveat emptor on social media my friends. Remember...nothing is for free in the marketplace. You always "pay" in some way or another.
Please pass this article on with your own social media including LinkedIn. For now I have been "restricted" with no reason given, and have to "wait" until "investigations are finished" on what...they will not tell me- LinkedIn just keeps stalling. Another way to silence us.
Until next Tuesday, here is a song from a group which thought and created music/lyrics ahead of their time. "Money" by Pink Floyd...a classic-enjoy: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ