TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
January 9, 2017
SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=25625
Fakebook has had to ditch its fake news flag after finding that people don’t just blindly listen to them when they declare something to be fake! Imagine that! Happy new year everyone!
Source: TheDailyBell.com
August 23, 2017
“Facebook is for old people,” I was told by a 17-year-old last week in San Francisco at the Startup Societies Summit.
He doesn’t use the social media platform. He’s right too. About half a million fewer teens aged 12-17 will use Facebook this year compared to last year.
Facebook depends on older people for its advertising revenue. But it needs to get users while they are young in order to keep them coming back to the social media website when they are older.
Facebook may be busy cooking up ways to attract the younger crowd, but they will inevitably fail at doing so. It is too late. If I am being told by a teenager that Facebook is for old people, the company probably suffers from an insurmountable branding problem among teens.
If parents are on Facebook, kids aren’t interested.
It’s not time to dig Facebook’s grave just yet.
Instagram is the preferred alternative to Facebook among youngsters. And Facebook owns Instagram.
But Facebook and Instagram are totally different platforms. On Instagram, you share pictures. Sure, you can write a caption and use some hashtags. And plenty of people still share memes. But it is not the personal information clearinghouse that Facebook is… or was.
Facebook is struggling with how to get people to share more personal things on their website. That was the main feature for a while, and probably what made Facebook popular. But now people are moving towards sharing more images, memes, and videos… things you can do on Instagram, Youtube, and Snapchat.
Ironically Facebook’s attempts to compete with other platforms helped depersonalize it. The engagement which made it popular is in the process of evaporating.
…sharing of original, personal content on Facebook declined by 21% between mid-2014 and mid-2015, and by 15% between April 2015 and April 2016, according to the Information.
Facebook addressed this decline in the sharing of personal content as “context collapse.” As users’ networks ballooned and their feeds became crowded with an ever growing pool of links and multimedia content from brands, who could blame them for not sharing? What’s the point of writing on a friend’s Timeline or posting a status update when it won’t be seen?
For me, Facebook is basically just a directory. People I have met and want to network with are added as friends, and then if I need to contact them, I can always send them a Facebook message.
It is also considered necessary to have Facebook pages for businesses or websites. This just adds to the impersonal feeling. People are seeing Facebook as more of an advertising machine, and less as an online social club. They are seeing more news–sure sometimes with their friends’ terrible opinions thrown in–and less about how their friends are feeling.
Facebook needs to know how you are feeling… it is how they advertise to you.
And this highlights why owning Instagram might not be enough for Facebook’s business model. Yes, they will still be alive as a company. But being alive isn’t the same as being an advertising powerhouse.
The reason Facebook is such a good way to advertise is because of the data. They know your “likes” and dislikes. They know what time you are most likely to click, and when you just want to be shown a cute cat video.
In Zuckerberg’s quest for world domination, Instagram just cannot deliver.
Facebook is in the power game by manupulating emotions, and making you feel a certain way. Facebook actually performed a study which manipulated the emotions of over 600,000 users in January 2012. For a week, they showed some people only negative news and status updates, and others only positive stories.
What the targetted users went on to post corresponded with whether or not they were being shown negative or positive things. They even were more likely to post emotional status updates when shown friends’ emotional updates. When they were shown mundane, boring posts, they were more likely to refrain from posting at all.
Facebook basically demonstrated that they can shape your worldview based on the information they throw into your feed.
But Instagram is different. On Instagram, you don’t have “friends.” You can follow someone, and they can follow you back. But they don’t have to. You can have one way follows. And it isn’t that easy for the other person to tell if you follow them, except at the very beginning, or by tediously looking through their follow list.
Sure, Instagram could serve up, or withhold certain images. But it is easy to unfollow friends who are posting stupid political memes without them ever knowing. People want to see beautiful places, architecture, animals, and pictures of friends.
It is a photo platform. Most of the time I don’t even read the description. Most of the time I scroll right past an image with words on it. Yes, they are still going to advertise to me, but my brain immediately recognizes it as an advertisement. They can only go so far without taking me out of the experience. In Facebook, that is all part of the experience, and it is relatively seamless.
So is Facebook going the way of the dinosaurs?
Probably not anytime soon. But I would be surprised if their influence didn’t shrink significantly over the next decade. They are not immune to industry disruption.
Even mighty behemoths of companies are not as safe as they might think. Remember MySpace?
Source: TheDuran.com
Adam Garrie
June 30, 2017
The German Bundestag (parliament) has voted to implement a law which would impose a fine of €50million to social media companies who failed to remove so-called “hate speech” and so-called “fake news”.
According to the law, social media companies would have just 24 hours to comply with the German government’s edict before the monumental fine would be issued.
This legislation is not only poorly conceived, almost impossible to enforce and excessive in its punitive stance towards private enterprise, but it is just plain wrong.
Laws which predate the invention of the internet make it so that issuing a criminal threat is illegal. This goes for threats written on poster-board, graffiti, obscene art exhibitions, digital statements or oral pronouncements.
This is as far as any such law needs to go. Hate is not a threat, it is merely the expression of a feeling or viewpoint. It is legal to dislike things, it is legal to hate things, it is legal to feel such hatred without having to intellectually justify it.
But these basic principles of modern law in the civilised world seem to be lost on an increasingly tyrannical German regime.
Even if one felt that expressing hatred or ‘fake news’ was a some sort of crime, the law does not define such things. Is it acceptable to hate Russia but not hate the EU? Would a pro-Russian Brexit supporter living in Germany (and yes, there are many such people) therefore be engaged in ‘hate speech’?
Is it acceptable to hate Palestine but not Israel? Is it acceptable to hate veterinarian food but not hate ham sandwiches? Is it acceptable to hate ugly people but not to hate people who have had plastic surgery?
Are Donald Trump’s statements which infuriate liberals now hate speech for which Twitter can be fined millions of Euros?
What about people who find it hateful that images of heterodox sexual propaganda are spread by major western corporations and governments to corrupt the minds of the young? Will their definition of hate speech be taken into account?
None of these questions are answered by the Germany lawmakers.
Also in respect of ‘fake news’ covered by the law, whose fake news? Should social media owners be fined when people post CNN stories about ‘Russiagate’ because this is by CNN workers own admission fake news?
When state-run British broadcaster BBC posts bogus stories about the Syrian government, will this incur a fake news fine?
While Facebook has condemned Germany’s move, this is merely a matter of Facebook’s self-interest in knowing that they could be fined for failing to censor something which goes against the wishes of Germany’s political narrative. Facebook already takes it upon itself to censor people whose sense of humour does not correspond with Facebook’s own ultra-liberal narrative.
As with most things in life, one man’s fake news is another man’s truth, one man’s idea of hate is another one’s idea of joy. If the German regime is to be the final arbiter of truth and taste, social media won’t really be social media at all, it will simply be statements that the German regime deems to be good and healthy according to its own very narrow narrative, one that the majority of the planet finds both hateful and fake.
Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
June 30, 2017
When I first started this website I didn’t have a plan for monetization. While I certainly believe people should be compensated for hard, useful work, all I wanted to do was read, write and think. The “business side” of running a blog felt like a nuisance and wasn’t something I had much passion or energy for. That hasn’t changed.
What has changed is passively putting third party code like Google Adsense on your website doesn’t really earn someone like me any money. While it was never a significant amount of cash in the first place, it wasn’t totally worthless. At this point it has become basically worthless, but that’s ok. I’m not going to complain about Google. Google doesn’t owe me anything and neither do the corporations that use the network. It was never a smart way for writers, particularly anti-establishment type writers highly critical of our economic system based on cronyism and fraud, to earn money. It never really made any sense, but I went down that road anyway because it was easy and allowed me to focus on what I really cared about, my work. But things have changed.
Advertisers have begun to flex their muscles over the past year or so, with YouTube demonetizing videos with any sort of unconventional political bent. From the advertisers’ perspective this makes perfect sense and there’s no point in complaining about it. This has forced many content producers to shift to a more reader supported model, which I think is far more empowering and healthy in the long-term despite painful short-term hits to revenue. Indeed, we shouldn’t trust any media that relies on large corporate advertisers to fund their “journalism,” as the product will be more like public relations than any hard-hitting truth to power. We’ve already seen that advertisers are willing to flex their muscles when it comes to content they don’t like, and we can expect that to accelerate going forward.
The latest warning sign comes courtesy of a Washington Post policy that forbids employees from disparaging advertisers. The Washingtonian reports:
A new social-media policy at the Washington Post prohibits conduct on social media that “adversely affects The Post’s customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers or partners.” In such cases, Post management reserves the right to take disciplinary action “up to and including termination of employment.”
The Post‘s Guild sent out a bulletin Sunday night protesting the policy. “If you’re like most of us, you probably acknowledged its receipt without reading it,” says the note, which was written by Guild co-chair Fredrick Kunkle. “But what you don’t know could hurt you.”
The guild wants to jettison other parts of the policy, which the Post confirms to Washingtonian went into effect on May 1 and applies to the entire company:
A provision that prohibits employees from “Disparaging the products and services of The Post’s advertisers, subscribers, competitors, business partners or vendors.”
A demand that employees “Refrain from using social media while on your work time, unless using Social Media is an authorized part of your job.”
A clause that encourages employees to snitch on one another: “If you have any reason to believe that an employee may be in violation of The Post’s Social Media Policy … you should contact the Post’s Human Resources Department.”
I thought part of the appeal of a billionaire like Jeff Bezos owning a “paper of record” is that it might make it less beholden to large powerful interests than you might otherwise expect. Guess not.
One thing the last twelve months should make clear to everyone reading this is that billionaire-owned corporate media cannot and should not be trusted to provide honest information, and will definitely never challenge the true centers of power in society. This makes the need for independent publishers more crucial than ever, and since such publishers cannot and should not depend on corporate advertisers, readers need to step up and support them. I’m not talking about my work specifically, I’m talking about all of the independent content creators you enjoy. Support all of them.
On Friday, I plan to publish an article outlining my plan for turning Liberty Blitzkrieg into a reader-supported publication in the years ahead. I think that’s the only sustainable way to stay on point, refrain from the temptations of clickbait, and avoid the whims of corporate advertisers and Google.
Stay tuned for more.
Meanwhile, if you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 20 2017
This article recounts key events along a time line that stretches from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball.
Since Facebook went public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering) of stock in 2012, I’ve been following the trail of its stock price.
In 2012, I wrote:
“But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17 [2012], it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.”
“Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. ‘Experts’ are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.”
“This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play… First, [insiders] drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize public investors, who sell their shares…As the stock continues to tank, the insiders quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.”
In 2013, I followed up and wrote: “Facebook launched its IPO and went public on May 18, 2012. The opening stock price was 42 dollars a share.”
“In September 2012, the collapsing stock hit a low of 17.55.”
“On October 17, 2013, a year later, after a long climb, the stock reached an all-time high: 52.21.”
“So…Facebook, a company with CIA-front connections, a company that encourages people to offer up surveillance data on themselves [and censors politically incorrect news], goes through a financial transformation. Its IPO price collapses like ice in a heat wave. It keeps trading at its new low prices, scaring lots of investors.”
“They sell their shares. Insiders buy up those shares at delicious discounts.”
“Then, when the insiders have scooped up enough, they begin to move the price. Up. The long climb begins.”
Now, in June of 2017, it’s time to check in again. What’s happened to Facebook’s stock price since the high of $54 a share in 2013?
From October 2016 to December 2016, there was another shakeout that convinced many shareholders to dump their stocks—and of course, insiders gobbled up those shares for themselves. The shakeout took the stock price down from an all-time high of $127.88 a share to $115.05.
Then, once again, the relentless climb resumed. On June 2nd of this year, the stock reached a new all-time high of $153.61.
All in all, quite a ride. From the IPO price of $42, down to $17…and now $150.
Are some of the insiders who have been engineering Facebook’s long-term stock-rise front-men for the CIA?
I ask that question because of Facebook’s CIA connections:
The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.
Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.
Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”
That’s not the only connection between Facebook funder Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.
With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who can fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?
From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.
CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a walk in the park for agencies like the CIA.
When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook/CIA presented an anti-Trump stance, which meant a pro-Hillary stance. Is that a pro-CIA stance? Let’s look at a fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other Clinton: Bill.
The source here is the explosive 1995 book, Compromised, by Terry Reed and John Cummings.
According to the authors, Bill Clinton, way back in the 1980s, was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.
It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.
This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill HE WAS STILL THEIR MAN FOR AN EVENTUAL RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.
Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.
Johnson said to Bill Clinton:
“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas…but let’s not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…
“I’m not here to threaten you [Bill Clinton]. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu…now we have to shut it down….
“Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.
“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”
By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first 1992 Presidential campaign.
That speaks of major planning. In 1992, an obscure governor from a rather obscure state suddenly gains national prominence and vaults to the head of the line in the race for the White House.
Now, consider the role of the CIA-connected Facebook in the 2016 presidential election. Did Facebook’s strategy of cutting off pro-Trump postings/information and instead supporting ANOTHER CLINTON, HILLARY, signal the continuation of a long-running covert CIA op to put and keep the Clintons in power?
Since 1986, have the Clintons been a package deal for the CIA?
Was the most recent incarnation of that deal the Facebook op to put Hillary in the White House?
Most people have a problem looking at log-term ops. They conceive of covert actions taking place along severely limited time lines. That’s exactly what major operatives count on. They can plan in the dark for two or three decades ahead (or longer) and feel they’re in the clear.
And when a little social networking company comes along and needs an infusion of cash, they can step in, help, and, seeing the possibilities, they can help push the stock to new highs and accomplish elite surveillance and censor true information and support their favored presidential candidate—all during the same dozen years.
It’s an easy program.
All sorts of cards can be played from the bottom of the deck.
Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Source: TheDailyBell.com
June 12, 2017
Ideally, America would stop giving out all foreign aid, but a good place to start would be nixing aid to countries with horrible human rights records.
For instance, Pakistan just sentenced a man to death for blasphemy. It is far from the first time someone has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, but it is the first time a death sentence has been handed down for blasphemy on social media. The 30-year-old man said derogatory things about Muhammad on Facebook.
He was tried by a counter-terrorism court for his online hate speech. This sounds eerily familiar to Theresa May’s calls to crack down on Internet freedom in an effort to counter terrorism. Pakistan shows the world one of the most extreme interpretations of government policing online discourse in the name of anti-terrorism.
At the same time, “Right groups say the harsh blasphemy laws are often used to settle personal scores.”
So basically, the more power a government has to regulate online behavior in the name of safety and security, the more power corrupt officials have to serve personal vendettas or bring politics into the court system.
And we may seem immune to that type of thing in the U.S. yet just last week an appeals court refused to give Ross Ulbricht a new trial. Ulbricht created the website the Silk Road which was used to traffic drugs and other illegal things on the dark web. He received a life sentence for his role as a “kingpin” and accessory to drug trafficking, even though all he did was create the web platform for exchange.
Two federal agents involved in the case are now behind bars for corruption. They stole from the Silk Road while investigating it, and one of their testimony was crucial to convicting Ross. The clearly untrustworthy agent had administrative access to the website that would have made it easy to frame Ulbricht, but the courts refused to allow this possibility to be explored.
The cases are different in scope and degree, but have basically the same lesson; government courts will rule the way the government wants them to rule to protect the interests of the government and government officials, regardless of right or wrong.
America Funds Pakistan’s Human Rights Abuses
But even though Pakistan is clearly violating human rights, the United States is ready to hand over another $800 million in aid to the country. Last year the U.S. gave them even more money for supporting the fight against terrorism in bordering Afghanistan.
The Trump administration has proposed to give Pakistan US $800 million as reimbursement for its military and logistical support in counter-terrorism operations
The specifics of what Pakistan will use this money for are not known, but since the money is meant to help them in their fight against terrorism, it could be used to fund their counter-terrorism courts; the court which sentenced a man to death for a blasphemous Facebook post.
And America has quite the track record of funding countries that abuse their citizens. Just look at the most recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $110 billion dollars. Why does America supply the oppressive dictatorship weapons,
…while Saudi Arabia continues ravaging the country of Yemen and its civilian population with U.S. bought weapons, aiding and funding several terrorist groups, and oppressing women to lives of servitude for men.
Why does America do business with a country that treats women like property?
On June 5, Amnesty International reported that one of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent women’s rights activist, Loujain al-Hathloul, was arrested. They noted she has no access to a lawyer and that the reason for her arrest has not been disclosed, though the organization believes it’s in relation to her activism. In 2014, she was arrested and detained for 73 days for driving.
America follows the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules. But if the dollar ever lost its magical power, how would the U.S. maintain its power at home and abroad? All the more reason to explore alternatives to manipulated fiat currency, which is then used in turn to manipulate others.
Monitoring people’s emotions would help the company keep them on the site for longer
Source: Independent.co.uk
Aatif Sulleyvan
June 8, 2017
Facebook is considering secretly watching and recording users through their webcams and smartphone cameras, a newly discovered patent suggests.
The document explains how the company would use technology to see how your facial expressions change when you come across different types of content on the site.
It would analyse those images to work out how you feel, and use the information to keep you on the site for longer.
If you smiled as you looked at pictures of one of your friends, for instance, Facebook’s algorithm would take note of that and display more pictures of that friend in your News Feed.
Another example included in the patent application explains that if you looked away from your screen when a video of a kitten played, Facebook would stop showing similar type of videos in your Feed.
In another case, the document says that if you happened to watch an advert for scotch, Facebook could choose to target you with more adverts for scotch.
The patent application was submitted in February 2014 and published in August 2015, but was only recently spotted, by CBInsights.
“We often seek patents for technology we never implement, and patents should not be taken as an indication of future plans,” said a Facebook spokesperson.
However, the document raises yet more concern about a company that, in 2014, was found to have secretly manipulated hundreds of thousands of users’ News Feeds as part of an experiment to work out whether it could affect people’s emotions.
The company later admitted that it “failed to communicate clearly why and how we did it”.
Last year, a picture posted by Mark Zuckerberg showed that he covers his webcam and microphone with tape. The public rather predictably made a big deal out of it, and the discovery of Facebook’s patent will only fuel speculation.
The site isn’t believed to have put its plans into action yet, and there’s no guarantee that it ever will.
The patent also details a new text-messaging platform that would detect how hard you type, and use that information to attempt to work out how you feel.
Source: TheDailyBell.com
May 31, 2017
A bad credit score can be quite the hardship in America. But can you imagine a bad social credit score? China is implementing social credit scores that will influence the types of schooling, jobs, and housing available to citizens.
The population will also have the chance to review and affect their neighbors’ and acquaintances’ scores. They will be ranked in order to decide who gets what privileges, and who must remain on the outer periphery of society. What citizens of China say on the internet and in relation to the Chinese government will influence the scores, creating a stratified society with the “perfect citizen” on top, decided of course by the ruling Chinese Communist Party.
The score will be contained in information found on ID cards citizens must carry. Some citizens who renew their ID’s are finding that they must submit a sample of their DNA to the central database that China is building to keep further track of their citizens. Over 44 million samples have already been collected. The Chinese government claims it is for crime fighting purposes, however, the people forced to give samples have often committed no crime.
China also strictly limits its internet, creating a firewall that blocks whatever the government does not want people to see. Facebook, Instagram, and other social media websites have been blocked for years by the Chinese government, afraid the citizens will use the social media sites to organize protests and opposition to the communist party.
China maintains control through strict laws against freedom of the press and freedom of speech which helps them revise history in the minds of its citizens. China even went so far as to make it illegal to speak out against the “heroes and martyrs” of China and the communist party.
Already, events like the massacre at Tiananmen Square are viewed with confusion and misunderstanding by younger generations. But now you could end up legally liable for just challenging the historical narrative told by the government.
And Facebook wants in on the action.
Facebook Wants to Impress the Repressive Regime
Zuckerberg has been sucking up to the Chinese government ever since they blocked Facebook in 2009. He has learned Mandarin in order to give some of his amazing speeches in China and even took a jog through a smog cloud last year for a photo op which included a Mao portrait in the background.
Zuckerberg has said, “You can’t have a mission to want to connect everyone in the world and leave out the biggest country.”
Zuckerberg also directly indicated his intentions by meeting with the Chinese Internet Czar and showing off his collection of Chinese propaganda and speeches by President Xi Jinping. Oh and he just happened to have JinPing’s book on his desk during the meeting, making him not just an insufferable kiss-ass but an obvious one too.
So should we really believe that Facebook made a mistake when they rejected a Hong Kong man’s controversial Facebook profile picture? (Facebook is not blocked in Hong Kong).
Facebook has apologised for “mistakenly” banning the use of a temporary profile picture frame commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.
Facebook’s picture frame function allows users to change their profile photos in support of a cause. The frame in question carries messages calling for justice for Tiananmen protesters and an end to the “dictatorial regime” in China…
He said he received a notification within 24 hours saying that his design was rejected, on the basis that it fails to meet the company’s terms and policies. Facebook said the frame “belittles, threatens or attacks a particular person, legal entity, nationality or group.”
Fung then submitted on Saturday afternoon another frame showing a candle and the text “Don’t forget June 4,” hoping that Facebook would approve it. It was still under review at the time of publication.
Oops, Facebook later said, it was totally just a little mistake that they supported a murderous government over activists wishing to draw attention to horrible human rights abuses.
In fact, under strict censorship laws, the government does not allow any discussion of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre in books and blocks online searches and discussions of the brutal crackdown that killed an estimated 1,000 students protesting the ruling Communist Party’s human rights abuses.
And now, the Chinese government is preparing for the 28th anniversary of the massacre on June 4th by placing many activists under house arrest and warning others not to speak out.
Facebook seems only too happy to help them in the effort of stamping out that dark mark on China’s history.
Facebook is a Dictator’s Wet Dream
People may not entirely know the extent of Facebook’s data gathering on users. It is much more than simply advertising to you based on recent Google searches, and figuring out your social circles to suggest friends. Facebook has algorithms which put together entire files on people that can be tailored to sell to an insurance company, an employer, or perhaps even the government.
It seems that China is weary of Facebook being used as a tool to organize dissent, and protest their strict Orwellian rules. But perhaps Xi Jinping is just playing hard to get. Zuckerberg will clearly have no problem altering Facebook in China to benefit the communist regime. With just a few tweaks, it will fit right into the Chinese government’s plan to turn China into an exact replica of the society depicted in 1984.
Zuckerberg is likely busy right now planning out exactly how he can help the regime implement their social credit policy–there’s no one better for the job! He can open up citizenship Facebook reviews for each profile, to streamline the process of ratting out your neighbors to the government.
He will be able to hand deliver the files on every citizen who uses Facebook to the Chinese government, revealing everything about them. It will be in Zuckerberg’s hands which Chinese citizens are oppressed and ostracized from Chinese society, and which ones are rewarded.
All the interest Zuckerberg has shown in Chinese propaganda, speeches, and leaders is simply him doing the proper research to understand how to best offer his products and services to dictatorships.
Source: ZeroHedge.com
May 31, 2017
Kripos, Norway’s National Criminal Investigation Service, is reportedly examining the legal aspects of how police accounts could be given access to areas of Facebook that are not open to the public. It would mean police gaining access to closed groups and interacting with members as they search for evidence of criminal activity, the Norwegian newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv reported.
“We have looked into the possibility of creating ‘uniformed accounts’. But we have not decided whether it is something we should do,” communications officer Axel Wilhelm Due told Dagens Næringsliv, via the Local.
As The Telegraph reports, police in Norway and elsewhere have previously used fake Facebook profiles to investigate crimes including smuggling alcohol and tobacco.
Facebook has not given police profiles with enhanced access to private groups but they can apply for access to them in connection with criminal cases, Dagens Næringsliv reported.
Police superintendent Emil Jenssen of Kripos told Norwegian broadcaster NRK:
“We get lots of tips on areas where it is sold bootleg, drugs or other illegal things. Then we go inside these groups to preserve evidence for criminal cases.
“If there is a criminal case we can go to court and get an injunction and send it to Facebook. They send us so the information we need.
“We have the ability to do this in necessity as well if there is danger to life and health. When it goes very quickly, often under an hour. In other criminal cases it takes longer.”
The company’s Norwegian press office told the paper that it didn’t want to comment on whether it would permit officially verified police accounts.
But such a decision would be a step forward for Facebook in terms of how it handles transparency surrounding intelligence or law enforcement agencies operating on the site. As the Snowden leaks revealed, Facebook and other tech giants like Google, Microsoft and Apple are already compelled to share our data with the National Security Agency, when it’s asked for.
If police officers are allowed to patrol content on the site, maybe Facebook could abandon some of its convoluted policies for policing what its users can and cannot see.
It also begs the question: Would this officially make “fake news” a crime?
Source: SGTReport.com
May 9, 2017
It has now become crystal clear that the You Tube ‘Adpocalypse’ is just phase one of a far more sinister plan to sabotage successful You Tube channels in order to kill competition, robber Barron style, so that the corporate, legacy and mainstream media can yield more power, control and eyeballs on You Tube. What’s being done to the SGT Report You Tube channel can be quantified by alarming statistics which prove, the fix is in. As John D. Rockefeller famously boasted, “Competition is a sin.” Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
TheBreakAway 