In July 2020, Facebook announced they would contributed descriptions to announces from politicians “to protect the holding of elections and promote healthy civic engagement.”1 The names were supposed to identify content Facebook thought was inflammatory, misinformation or lies, without removing the post.
Why Facebook felt they should “moderate” free speech that was not incendiary or promoted cruelty is a question for another time. Harmonizing to left-leaning Media Matters for America, 2 while the media giant continues to use labels on poles, a study of Trump’s announces found that those “thats been” labeled as possible misinformation had significantly more interactions than those that were not labeled.
In other paroles, the labels appeared to engage more books. Facebook began researching a new label in July 2021. These descriptions don’t precisely distinguish possible “misinformation, ” but go any further to stimulate readers — asking if their friends are becoming radicals. 3 Historically, extreme minds have proven to advance society or lag it back into the Dark Ages. Consider 😛 TAGEND
Book burning by the Nazis to ensure the next generation did not providing access to anticipates contrary to Hitler4
The project that humans can fly, leading to the Wright brethren inventing the airplane
That energy could be controlled, with dreamers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison working to find ways to have lamp in the dark
That the medical establishment didn’t entertain the idea of handwashing to stop the spread of disease until 20 years of data evidenced the practice lowered paces of infection5
The thread that runs through these extreme ideas is that censorship influences the style culture fantasizes and therefore changes the results of the. Had the German people been allowed to think for themselves, an part country may not have been swayed by the propaganda of one human. If the medical community were open to the idea that their behavior was killing people, they may have saved thousands.
Of course, there are extreme suggestions that should not be entertained. People will never is the possibility of fly without succour or walk into fire without defence. Yet, without censorship, these sentiments die a natural fatality. It’s simply through debate and sharing information that the truth winnings out. And the truth is the only foundation on which culture can realistically and confidently continue.
Facebook Labels Gardeners as Possible Activists
CNN reported that Facebook causes are being shown to some individuals, prudence them that they may know someone who is becoming an extremist. Other promptings are letting people know they’ve been exposed to extremist content. This is part of Facebook’s Redirect Initiative. 6 Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone told CNN: 7
“This test is part of our large work to assess ways to provide resources and support to beings on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content or may know someone who is at risk. We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.”
In the past, Facebook has been criticized for not acting on content that encourages people toward brutality. Yet, these admonishes are also attached to berths sharing information about apparently innocuous topics, like buying nutrient. Harmonizing to CNET :8
“One of the notifies, shared on Twitter, asks:’ Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist? We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your statu has come forward with confidential support.’
Another alert speaks:’ Violent groups try to manipulate your indignation and disappointment. You can take action now to protect yourself and others.’”
As an likenes saved on archive.is from Reddit establishes, 9 Facebook is labeling those selling home-grown beef as “too prepared.” Compare the extremist contemplates of preparedness to the Forbes1 0 report August 17, 2021, that the Taliban would have control of the Afghan social media accounts.
However, it doesn’t stop there. Twitter affixes are reporting screenshots of canning and gardening radicals that are also being asked, “Are you concerned that someone you know is too prepared? We care about frustrating extremism on Facebook. Others in your place has come forward with confidential support.”
In other oaths, Facebook is labeling people who are preparing their food supply as potential fanatics, but in August 2021, the social monster was fine with activist radicals like the Taliban taking over Afghan social media histories. 11 Twenty-four hours later, though, Reuters1 2 reported Facebook had a ban on the Taliban posting on the social media stage. According to vice president of content policy Monika Bickert: 13
“They will not be allowed while they are prescribed by the U.S. law and even if they were not prescribed by U.S. ordinance, we would have to do a plan analysis on whether or not they nevertheless violate our hazardous organisations policy.”
Bickert is referring to the fact that the U.S. has soft-pedaled their posture on the group as they are not on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. 14 Since the U.S. had not been able to classified them as gunmen, they can enter negotiations1 5 with working group whose wars historically have been less than trustworthy. 16,17, 18
Facebook’s definition of militant plans apparently conforms to the doctrines of the World Economic Forum( WEF ), of which Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook, is a part of that. 19
For example, while some consider a guaranteed basic income paid by the government to all citizens as progressive and dystopian, according to a charismatic appearance Zuckerberg made during a inauguration addres at Harvard, 20 moving the financial scaffold “of the worlds” to universal basic income is not an extremist move.
Instead, it’s something to be explored and researched. As reported by the WEF, Zuckerberg explained that “too few people had the opportunity to try out new ideas — like house his world-conquering platform.”2 1 This is in line with the WEF’s mission to reinvent the future2 2 by resetting the global fiscal platform. 23
Facebook Act Called to Question in Early 2019
In late 2018, PBS’s “Frontline” liberated a two-part film announced “The Facebook Dilemma, ”2 4,25 in which James Jacoby probed the affected by the social media beings had over the democracy of commonwealths, and the lack of privacy parameters that allowed for tens of millions of users’ data to be siphoned and used to influence U.S. elections.
During 2019 Bloomberg2 6 reported Facebook was taping flecks of audio the government has recorded from users’ telephones. This explained how many were realizing targeted ads after just speaks with a product or service out loud. Further research exposed even more disturbingly, Android apps were taking screen shots of your smartphone and sending the information to third parties. 27
According to The Guardian, 28 in 2018 Facebook had 40 correspondents who worked as information checkers pinpointed across the globe. They were split in their opinion about their fact-checking relationship with Facebook. The Guardian mentioned one who said: 29
“Why should we trust Facebook when it’s drive the same rumors that its own fact checkers are calling fake news? It’s worth asking how do they consider narratives about George Soros on the platform knowing they exclusively compensate parties to try to link political enemies to him? Working with Facebook procreates us look bad.”
Some writers spoke with a reporter from The Guardian, who said they told him, 30 “Facebook’s hiring of a PR firm that used an antisemitic narrative to repudiate reviewers — fueling the same kind of propaganda fact checkers regularly debunk — should be a deal-breaker.”
The accusations into Facebook’s PR pleasures came after the European Parliament called for a privacy scrutiny when it was revealed that Facebook let Cambridge Analytica to misuse 87 million users’ data to influence election results. 31 The infraction penalty Facebook a mere $643,000 for the role it played, which they paid to the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s office.
Facebook’s reported revenue for the first fourth in 2021 was $26.17 billion, up 48%, due in part from higher-priced advertising. 32 Although the fine was a drop in the barrel when compared against Facebook’s revenue, it was the maximum possible penalty that could be imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998. Under the new laws transferred in 2018, the maximum penalize have had an opportunity to $22 million. 33
The reporter from The Guardian wrote that one of the fact checkers, Brooke Binkowski, shared how Facebook affected the performance of their duties, sometimes to protect their advertisers, writing: 34
“ … it appeared that Facebook was pushing reporters to prioritize debunking misinformation that affected Facebook advertisers, which she contemplated swept a line: ‘You’re not doing journalism any more. You’re doing propaganda.’”
This is inline with current activities, since extremist content that shares preparedness, self-reliance, and evidence-based data about viral spread, masking or shot planneds may have an impact on the push towards the “Great Reset.”
Facebook’s Prepandemic Campaign Against Vaccine Information
Facebook’s campaign against parties sharing information about vaccination platforms had grown in strength even before the COVID-1 9 genetic rehabilitation shot planned. As I reported in early 2019, it was likely driven to protect the interests of their pharmaceutical advertisers. 35,36, 37
While many accept vaccination programs are not advantageous, consider Pfizer’s Prevnar 13 inoculation, which is supposed to protect against common sprains of pneumonia and performed three times more money than Viagra in 2015.38
The rising benefits from Prevnar 13 in 2015 were thanks to the U.S. government’s recommendation to start using it in adults over 65, and not only in children. 39 As noted in the Financial Times, 40 “ … the success of Prevnar demonstrates[ vaccines] can be as profitable as any drug.” So, if you have forums on Facebook sharing true experiences about vaccine side effects, you can see why Pfizer wouldn’t want those notes left there.
When you have a profitable business, you want to promote sustained growth. This wants fostering and protecting your products and services. That’s regular in the world of business. What is not normal is procuring the government to mandate the use of your product while simultaneously thwarting sharing bad reviews that impact auctions or action you to improve the safety or effectiveness of the product.
So, what was happening in the vaccine manufacture before 2020 has continued during the pandemic. The pushing to censor negative press about inoculations on Facebook has been outright shocking. The reason is that “misinformation” thwarts beings from manufacturing voice medical decisions.
It’s the same justification being used by Facebook to name any information about the COVID vaccine4 1 as fallaciou or admonishes beings embed their own plots against “extremist judges, ” while provide “confidential support.”4 2
Government Asking Social Media to Ban Research
Christina Parks, Ph.D ., has her measure in cellular and molecular biology. In this short video she vouches before the Michigan House on Bill 4471, which seeks to prohibit vaccinations as a condition of employment in Michigan. You likely have read or heard the information she shares about COVID, influenza and DTap vaccines if you’ve been reading my newsletter.
Yet, the science she’s quoting is the terribly information that Facebook, and the U.S. authority would like to ban from social media places. To control and influence your demeanor, it is essential that you do not understand the social sciences behind viral pathogens and the vaccines that hope to control those infections — and that intends stopping you from learning technical truths by any means possible.
July 16, 2021, during a White House briefing4 3 press secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the Biden Administration is alerting social media companies to posts and accounts that the White House believes is peddling “misinformation” about COVID insertions. This is illegal and a violation of First Amendment liberties. During the brief she quoth the “Disinformation Dozen” report released by the Center for Countering Digital Hate( CCDH ). 44,45
The report claims that 65% of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Twitter comes from 12 individuals, including me. After this “disinformation” report was virally spread, the truth was indicates that there is an August 18, 2021, report from Bickert at Facebook, placing the record straight, and in the process razed the CCDH’s claims. The report discovered: 46
“In fact, these 12 parties are responsible for about merely 0.05% of all beliefs of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related berths they’ve shared, whether true-life or fictitiou, as well as URLs associated with these people.”
As the likenes on Reddit4 7 aptly expresses, Facebook now promotes the idea that stretching meat and buying nutrient from farmers may determine you “too prepared.” They will warn your friends they have been exposed to extremist ideas and can receive confidential support to ensure they don’t follow suit.
Read more: articles.mercola.com