“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
The secret to achieving accountability for Facebook's and Twitter's censorship
Facebook continues to reinforce the perception of its content moderators as pre-adolescents, and I mean in terms of character and maturity regardless of age, who are unable to handle authority responsibly. These moderators come across to me as using their authority to advance their personal political agendas and biases rather than enforce what the social media platform calls its "community standards." Here is the feedback that Hillel Neuer's U.N. Watch got for a post that is obviously condemnatory of the Taliban, and that added that one would not see Ben & Jerry's boycott this organization. "Your page is at risk of being unpublished ... due to continued community standards violations."
A look at the purported violation tells us immediately that there are only two credible, at least to me, explanations for the moderator's behavior. The first is that the moderator is a Taliban sympathizer who took personal offense at Mr. Neuer's depiction of the Taliban in a clearly negative context. The second is that the moderator supports the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement to which Ben & Jerry's made itself a party. The moderator's explanation was that the post violated a policy against "dangerous individuals," but this is not credible because the post condemns rather than promotes the dangerous individuals in question. Does Facebook now have a policy against denunciation of the Taliban, Hamas, al-Qaeda, violent white supremacist organizations, and so on?
I also wondered whether Facebook was censoring derogatory material about Ben & Jerry's because the company is an advertiser, but it is not. Facebook needs to take a rapid, and hard, look at what this moderator's conduct has done to its brand.
Moderated Social Media? You Keep What You Don't Delete.
"You keep what you don't delete" means that the instant a social media platform takes it upon itself to issue warnings, suspend people's accounts, block them from posting, or remove their posts, it owns whatever it does not delete. Facebook and Twitter both banned Donald Trump from their platforms, so they are now morally responsible for whatever hate speech they don't delete. Facebook's action against Mr. Neuer reinforces this even further; Mark Zuckerberg now owns, as I see it, every single piece of hate speech that he permits to reside (such as "Mossad put the explosives here," with "here" referring to the Twin Towers), or permitted to reside (Jewish Ritual Murder), under his roof. He and those who work for him have (1) proven, e.g. with their latest action against Mr. Neuer, that they have the power to remove this material and terminate the users' accounts, but (2) have not done so as demonstrated by its continued presence.
Wir haben nicht gewusst? Nein.
Facebook cannot claim, "Wir haben nicht gewusst" ("we did not know"), either. It has certainly been more than diligent in finding and censoring content from Mr. Neuer, which means it is equally capable of finding and removing "Mossad put the explosives here" if it regards this kind of material as problematic. It is meanwhile a matter of record that Facebook knew about "Jewish Ritual Murder" and chose not to remove it until public outrage compelled it to do so.
MoveOn.org similarly censored content with which it did not agree but left online anti-Semitic content such as "Jew Lieberman" and also hate speech against Catholics and evangelical Christians. MoveOn claimed that it did not see the hate speech, but its FAQ page said moderators read everything that was posted at least twice. Oops. In addition, the very fact that it censored far less objectionable, but conservative rather than leftist, content showed that it had the ability to remove the hate speech but chose not to. You keep what you don't delete.
Donald Trump No, "Jewish Ritual Murder" Yes
Facebook tolerated a page called "Jewish Ritual Murder" and told those who complained about it that it did not violate Facebook's community standards. This page, along with TruthAboutJews on Twitter, was taken down only after a major public outcry.
"Jewish Ritual Murder's" background, as I recall, depicted black-coated Jews near black crows or ravens near German children and might well have come from Nazi propaganda of the 1930s. Here (item 4, "Dehumanization") is the image in question. "Taken from a children's book, this illustration compares Jews to ravens. Germany, 1936. Source: Montreal Holocaust Museum." This is what I recall seeing on Facebook, although it is not on the archived pages that are still available. Here are examples of the kind of commentary that did not violate what the pre-adolescents who appear to moderate Facebook call their community standards.
Facebook's moderators also seem to think this beauty meets community standards.
Facebook needs to take rapid action on the deletion of Hillel Neuer's denunciation of the Taliban and Ben & Jerry's, noting how the moderator's conduct affects Facebook's brand. Disciplinary counseling plus a letter of apology to Mr. Neuer seem appropriate. Perhaps Facebook should go even further by making clear that dismissal will be the consequence for the next moderator who does anything similar, but Facebook needs to do something.
The same goes for Twitter's toleration of tweets by Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren that falsely and therefore libelously accused an identifiable police officer of murder. While the Communications Decency Act shields Twitter (but not Harris or Warren) from legal action by the officer in question if it is not outside the statute of limitations, Twitter is nonetheless a moral albeit not legal accessory to libel under the reasonable doctrine "you keep what you don't delete."
Facebook's and Twitter's advertisers, meanwhile, need to take a hard look at the conduct their money supports, and I mean the conduct of content moderators who do not understand that authority comes with responsibility to work by the rules rather than do whatever they want. If you moderate your users' content, then you keep what you don't delete. Facebook owned "Jewish Ritual Murder," and it still owns "Mossad put the explosives here," just as Twitter owned TruthAboutJews, which also included a racial slur about "darkies," and still owns the libelous content from Harris and Warren. That is all there is to it.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. The author is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.
Facebook continues to reinforce the perception of its content moderators as pre-adolescents, and I mean in terms of character and maturity regardless of age, who are unable to handle authority responsibly. These moderators come across to me as using their authority to advance their personal political agendas and biases rather than enforce what the social media platform calls its "community standards." Here is the feedback that Hillel Neuer's U.N. Watch got for a post that is obviously condemnatory of the Taliban, and that added that one would not see Ben & Jerry's boycott this organization. "Your page is at risk of being unpublished ... due to continued community standards violations."
A look at the purported violation tells us immediately that there are only two credible, at least to me, explanations for the moderator's behavior. The first is that the moderator is a Taliban sympathizer who took personal offense at Mr. Neuer's depiction of the Taliban in a clearly negative context. The second is that the moderator supports the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement to which Ben & Jerry's made itself a party. The moderator's explanation was that the post violated a policy against "dangerous individuals," but this is not credible because the post condemns rather than promotes the dangerous individuals in question. Does Facebook now have a policy against denunciation of the Taliban, Hamas, al-Qaeda, violent white supremacist organizations, and so on?
I also wondered whether Facebook was censoring derogatory material about Ben & Jerry's because the company is an advertiser, but it is not. Facebook needs to take a rapid, and hard, look at what this moderator's conduct has done to its brand.
Moderated Social Media? You Keep What You Don't Delete.
"You keep what you don't delete" means that the instant a social media platform takes it upon itself to issue warnings, suspend people's accounts, block them from posting, or remove their posts, it owns whatever it does not delete. Facebook and Twitter both banned Donald Trump from their platforms, so they are now morally responsible for whatever hate speech they don't delete. Facebook's action against Mr. Neuer reinforces this even further; Mark Zuckerberg now owns, as I see it, every single piece of hate speech that he permits to reside (such as "Mossad put the explosives here," with "here" referring to the Twin Towers), or permitted to reside (Jewish Ritual Murder), under his roof. He and those who work for him have (1) proven, e.g. with their latest action against Mr. Neuer, that they have the power to remove this material and terminate the users' accounts, but (2) have not done so as demonstrated by its continued presence.
Wir haben nicht gewusst? Nein.
Facebook cannot claim, "Wir haben nicht gewusst" ("we did not know"), either. It has certainly been more than diligent in finding and censoring content from Mr. Neuer, which means it is equally capable of finding and removing "Mossad put the explosives here" if it regards this kind of material as problematic. It is meanwhile a matter of record that Facebook knew about "Jewish Ritual Murder" and chose not to remove it until public outrage compelled it to do so.
MoveOn.org similarly censored content with which it did not agree but left online anti-Semitic content such as "Jew Lieberman" and also hate speech against Catholics and evangelical Christians. MoveOn claimed that it did not see the hate speech, but its FAQ page said moderators read everything that was posted at least twice. Oops. In addition, the very fact that it censored far less objectionable, but conservative rather than leftist, content showed that it had the ability to remove the hate speech but chose not to. You keep what you don't delete.
Donald Trump No, "Jewish Ritual Murder" Yes
Facebook tolerated a page called "Jewish Ritual Murder" and told those who complained about it that it did not violate Facebook's community standards. This page, along with TruthAboutJews on Twitter, was taken down only after a major public outcry.
"Jewish Ritual Murder's" background, as I recall, depicted black-coated Jews near black crows or ravens near German children and might well have come from Nazi propaganda of the 1930s. Here (item 4, "Dehumanization") is the image in question. "Taken from a children's book, this illustration compares Jews to ravens. Germany, 1936. Source: Montreal Holocaust Museum." This is what I recall seeing on Facebook, although it is not on the archived pages that are still available. Here are examples of the kind of commentary that did not violate what the pre-adolescents who appear to moderate Facebook call their community standards.
Facebook's moderators also seem to think this beauty meets community standards.
Facebook needs to take rapid action on the deletion of Hillel Neuer's denunciation of the Taliban and Ben & Jerry's, noting how the moderator's conduct affects Facebook's brand. Disciplinary counseling plus a letter of apology to Mr. Neuer seem appropriate. Perhaps Facebook should go even further by making clear that dismissal will be the consequence for the next moderator who does anything similar, but Facebook needs to do something.
The same goes for Twitter's toleration of tweets by Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren that falsely and therefore libelously accused an identifiable police officer of murder. While the Communications Decency Act shields Twitter (but not Harris or Warren) from legal action by the officer in question if it is not outside the statute of limitations, Twitter is nonetheless a moral albeit not legal accessory to libel under the reasonable doctrine "you keep what you don't delete."
Facebook's and Twitter's advertisers, meanwhile, need to take a hard look at the conduct their money supports, and I mean the conduct of content moderators who do not understand that authority comes with responsibility to work by the rules rather than do whatever they want. If you moderate your users' content, then you keep what you don't delete. Facebook owned "Jewish Ritual Murder," and it still owns "Mossad put the explosives here," just as Twitter owned TruthAboutJews, which also included a racial slur about "darkies," and still owns the libelous content from Harris and Warren. That is all there is to it.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. The author is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.
Social Media NOT Censoring Muslim Hate Speech and Incitement to Murder
So long as infidels don’t see such content.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Despite Facebook’s zeal at censoring so-called “hate speech” and “offensive content,” violent, radical, and murderous content from Muslim terror groups is allowed to appear on and make use of the social media giant’s platform. According to a recent report,
Facebook allowed photos of beheadings and violent hate speech from ISIS and the Taliban to be tagged as “insightful” and “engaging”…
Extremists have turned to the social media platform as a weapon “to promote their hate-filled agenda and rally supporters” on hundreds of groups…
These groups have sprouted up across the platform over the last 18 months and vary in size from a few hundred to tens of thousands of members, the review found.
One pro-Taliban group created in spring this year and had grown to 107,000 members before it was deleted, the review, published by Politico, claims.
Overall, extremist content is “routinely getting through the net,” despite claims from Meta – the company that owns Facebook – that it’s cracking down on extremists.
There were reportedly “scores of groups” allowed to operate on Facebook that were supportive of either Islamic State or the Taliban, according to a new report.
This matter is significantly worse when one looks at Facebook in Arabic and other Muslim languages. In the last few years, I’ve seen countless Arabic-language content on Facebook and other social media giants that amounts to nothing less than terroristic incitement. Usually, these posts remain on the social media platforms for years—until, of course, I or others draw attention to them in English-language articles, at which point they are conveniently removed. In other words, as long as only Muslims see—and are radicalized by—these posts full of hatred and incitement for violence against non-Muslims, social media leave them up; once Western “infidels” get wind of these posts, which further stand to make Islam look bad, social media take them down.
Indeed, only recently I translated an immensely profane and hate-filled Arabic tirade from a New York-based Muslim man against two Christian men from Egypt—a rant that culminates with him loudly threatening decapitation to anyone who “hurts the reputation of Muhammad.” This video, which currently has nearly 100,000 views, is, apparently because it’s only in Arabic, (currently) still up on YouTube.
Meanwhile, social media, especially Facebook, are notoriously quick to censor content that exposes the jihadists. This it calls “hate speech.” As discussed in more detail here, Facebook earlier banned—and continues shadow banning—me, for posts that report on Muslims persecuting Christians—which Facebook characterized as “going against our Community Standards.”
Similarly, YouTube earlier censored my Prager U video on that exact topic; it also once temporarily banned me for uploading and sharing a video of Islamic State members destroying crosses and desecrating churches in Syria and Iraq—even though that video was not “graphic” (it depicted buildings and crosses, inanimate objects) and had for weeks been going viral on Arabic media.
Incidentally and rather ironically, while “competing Sunni and Shia militia reportedly trolled each other by posting pornographic images” on social media—and, according to the new report, got away with it—for some Los Angeles Wi-Fi networks, it’s my site, which is devoted to the Islamic question, that is banned as “pornography.”
Such is the true extent of the problem posed by the social media giants: not only do they, as many already know, censor those who expose Islamic hate and violence; they also allow Islamic hate and violence to proliferate and radicalize Muslims.
Profits of Doom: Globalist Elites Doubled Their Wealth During Coronavirus Pandemic
As the world was buffeted by a coronavirus tsunami leaving forced lockdowns, supply-chain problems, economic upheaval, and poverty in its wake, globalist financial elites “have had a terrific pandemic” according to a report released Monday.
The world’s 10 richest men have more than doubled their fortunes to $1.9 trillion, at a rate of $1.6 billion a day, over the past 12 months, proving elites have largely been spared the misery and financial ruin inflicted on so many by endless enforced lockdowns.
A confederation of charities that focus on alleviating global poverty, Oxfam said members of the globalist financial elites saw their wealth rose more during the pandemic more than it did the previous 14 years, when the world economy was suffering the worst recession since the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
These are some of the main points from Oxfam’s latest report, Inequality Kills, which has been released as global business leaders meet virtually this week for the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.
“We have a situation where 10 men hold more wealth than that of two-thirds of humanity,” Lyn Morgain, chief executive of Oxfam Australia, told Australia’s ABC news outlet.
“Not only that, but that bottom 40 percent are hanging on by a thread.”
The report highlights what the charity says are “unprecedented” levels of global inequality as coronavirus sharpens the divide between “us and them,” the “haves and have nots.”
Jeff Bezos speaks about his flight on Blue Origin’s New Shepard into space during a press conference on July 20, 2021 in Van Horn, Texas. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Meanwhile the likes of Tesla co-founder Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, enjoyed the greatest year-on-year growth since records began, the report outlined.
At a time when a group of these men were using their riches to rocket into outer space, the charity said, the World Bank had projected that more than 160 million people had been pushed into poverty.
In all, 20 new “pandemic billionaires” have also been created in Asia thanks to the international response to coronavirus, according to the charity.
Forbes listed the world’s 10 richest men as: Tesla and SpaceX chief Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, former Microsoft CEOs Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, former Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, U.S. investor Warren Buffet and the head of the French luxury group LVMH, Bernard Arnault.
The Oxfam report follows a December 2021 study by the group which found that the share of global wealth of the world’s richest people soared at a record pace during the pandemic.
No comments:
Post a Comment