Potential Litigation? YouTube Is Not Private and Its Censorship Is Government Policy

Source: TheDailyBell.com
September 5, 2016

A number of users called YouTube’s actions a threat to free speech, although the company technically isn’t bound by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, since it is a business and not an arm of the government. Like Facebook, it can remove whatever content it wants to. More than anything, however, the dispute reinforces how much of our public speech and behavior is now controlled by large corporations and platforms such as Google and Facebook. – Fortune

YouTube is demonetizing videos and willing YouTube creators are expressing shock and dismay.

But why are the surprised? YouTube is part of Google and Google is part of the CIA.

The US is run by intelligence agencies that control both Congress and the Presidency. In turn, DC – and London’s City – control the relevant intel agencies and technology and information companies like Google and Facebook.

Facebook is already active in the text removal business and now YouTube is becoming more aggressive. The mainstream media response to what these “companies” are doing is that they are not part of government and can do what they wish, absent shareholder pressure.

But this isn’t true.

They are not private companies. They are government/CIA enterprises. Just look at the history of these companies.

The founders of Google apparently worked for US intel or the military before founding Google. And the CIA funded Facebook with millions when it was just a startup.

Here’s a comment on Google from the crowd-funded Insurge Intelligence site (here):

How the CIA made Google … How the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.

Facebook, like Google, is part of this process as we wrote here:

A company like Facebook is not responsible to its shareholders. If CEO Mark Zuckerberg were to stop collecting information for the CIA, he would be shoved rudely out the door or worse.

We wrote this about Facebook’s initial funding (here):

The second investment in Facebook came from an individual closely associated with the CIA. It was a huge amount for a start-up, some $12 million.

There’s probably a lawsuit here, were anyone courageous enough to pursue it. Facebook, YouTube (and ultimately Google) are surely acting on instructions of the US government when it comes to reducing and removing content that they claim is “objectionable.”

In other words, what appears to be some sort of weird business decision when it comes to YouTube is part of a larger government program.

YouTube is removing monetization from videos that have sexual content or connotations. But the sexual aspects of YouTube’s activities are merely to cover up the real reason to remove or demonetize videos, which has to do with their political content.

YouTube’s ploy is similar to David Cameron’s when he demanded that vendors ask customers for proactive signatures before providing with websites that included sexual content. There was a list of such sites, but eventually it was reported that there were a number of non-pornographic sites on the list – simply non-traditional or alternative websites that the British government wanted to make less available.

If one wanted to do more than complain, a lawsuit is an obvious possibility. These companies have been marketed publicly as primarily business enterprises when in fact they are pieces of a larger US intelligence apparatus.

Conclusion: One can therefore argue that Vloggers who have done business with YouTube have become involved under false pretenses. They thought they were contributing to a normal business, but in fact their presentations are being evaluated from the standpoint of whether or not they support the current US technocracy.

Editor’s Note: You can see a discussion of the underlying political reasons for the demonetization move now –  in the final two months of the Clinton campaign, here. (From 33 minutes on.)

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Google’s AI Kill Switch

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
June 15, 2016

One of my favorite television series is Person of Interest, which has – to say the least – a very contemporary story line. In it, the inventor of a massive AI datamining and surveillance operation, Harold Finch, has created this program for post-9/11 monitoring of potential terrorist activities. Mr. Finch has built a back-door into his own program, allowing him to use it to intervene in the lives of private individuals facing difficulties. And, as a means of being able to control his creation, he has built in his own kill switch, a program that shuts his machine off every 24 hours and wipes its memory, to prevent it from going out of control.

THe trouble is, in the series, another friend of his has built a similar program called Samaritan, but this is stolen by a rogue MI-6 intelligence agent, who removes the kill switch, allowing Samaritan to grow and grow, and mount a cyber war against Finch’s machine.

Well, art imitates life, as they saying goes, and in this case, it may be a little closer to home than we imagine, but we’ll get back to that. In this case, the following article was shared by Ms. K.M., a regular reader and contributor of articles for review here. And in this case, it’s a whopper doozie:

Google is working on a kill switch to prevent an AI uprising

The crux of the matter is addressed right up front:

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com


Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.


After Repeated Denials, Facebook Now Admits Its Employees Censored Targeted News Sites Like NaturalNews

[Editor’s Note]

As someone who has been censored by the likes of Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, Youtube & WordPress [Yes, indeed my friends; wordpress will not auto-load my posts to facebook even though the account is linked directly to it and was working the first few days.  This is not the first time its happened either.] countless times, this hits close to the heart.

First of, if we don’t have freedom of speech, then we aren’t as free as we think we are.  Also, what’s the point of being in a ‘social’ network if you’re not going to be engaging in intelligent conversations about subjects that matter.  At least for me, that’s part of the appeal.

The other question is, why DO they have an agenda?  Who’s calling the shots?  Do they really have ties to the CIA/NSA?  After all, what better way to spy on people then having a social network where people WILLINGLY give you nigh all their personal information, where endless databases can be created from it.

If you don’t think it’s possible, then think again, because a place that allows one method of information control, will certainly allow another. 


Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
June 7, 2016

Facebook recently admitted in a letter to John Thune, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, that news curators hired by the company had the power to decide which stories to highlight in the Trending Topics section of the site.

The company said that some of those contractors could have used their discretion to discriminate against stories based on their political bent. The company also did not dispute claims that news curators had avoided linking to certain news sites, such as Breitbart, instead waiting for the same story to appear in a larger outlet.

Facebook said that these editorial decisions did not reflect company policy, and that news curators would be retrained to eliminate bias.

Certain sites blacklisted

Allegations of censorship surfaced following a Gizmodo article in which anonymous Facebook news curators revealed that Trending Topics are not selected solely by computer algorithm. Instead, the computer generates a list of topics for curators, who decide which stories to post and then write headlines and summaries for them.

The curators told Gizmodo that different editors imposed very different standards for what stories passed muster.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” one former curator said.

That source supplied Gizmodo with a list he had made, while working for Facebook, of trending stories on conservative political topics that had never made it onto the feed.

Curators also told Gizmodo that they avoided publishing news from certain websites, including World Star Hip Hop, The Blaze, Breitbart, Newsmax and Washington Examiner, until they found a larger outlet covering the same story. It is unclear which other sites, including Natural News, might have been censored by overzealous curators.

Gizmodo noted that it was unknown whether other curators had also censored news on liberal topics or from left-leaning websites.

Human element acknowledged

In its letter to Thune, Facebook acknowledged that the Trending Topics feed is not as automated as its name might imply.

“We currently use people to bridge the gap between what an algorithm can do today and what we hope it will be able to do in the future — to sort the meaningful trends from gibberish and duplicates, and to write headlines and descriptions in clear, natural-sounding language,” company counsel Colin Stretch wrote.

The company admitted that employees had the ability to “blacklist” a story for 24 hours, ostensibly to give them time to figure out whether the story was accurate and still current.

Facebook also announced new “controls and oversight” to help eliminate bias. It said it would eliminate certain policies that had made biased curating more likely.

Among the policies to be eliminated is the ability of curators to decide that a source is unreliable, as well as a list of 10 mainstream news outlets (including Fox News, Buzz Feed, CNN and the New York Times) that could be used to judge whether a story was important.

But the company insisted that there was no “systematic political bias” at work. It said it had conducted a review of seven different topics that critics said were censored, and concluded that the topics had received just as much coverage, over time, as other news stories.

“Our investigation has revealed no evidence of systematic political bias in the selection or prominence of stories included in the Trending Topics feature,” Stretch wrote. “In fact, our analysis indicated that the rates of approval of conservative and liberal topics are virtually identical in Trending Topics.”

Thune, who is investigating the allegations of political bias, said the letter answered most of his questions.

“Facebook’s description of the methodology it uses for determining the trending content it highlights for users is far different from and more detailed than what it offered prior to our questions,” he said. “We now know the system relied on human judgment, and not just an automated process, more than previously acknowledged.”

Continue Reading At:NaturalNews.com