Censorship continues to run rampant in the U.S. and elsewhere, particularly when it comes to information regarding public health. It is because of this, along with their dishonest data mining acts, that I left Facebook in 2019.
The social media outlet, nonetheless, continues to censor posts from organizations seeking to share health truths, including Children’s Health Defense( CHD ), whose mission is to end childhood health plagues by removing damaging exposures, containing individuals responsible accountable and establishment of precautions to prevent further injures. 1
As a decision, the nonprofit organization, which was founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr ., litigated Facebook, its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and three of its “fact-checking” partners for censoring their honest public health posts and fraudulently falsifying and defaming CHD. 2
Facebook Censorship’ at Odds With the First Amendment’
CHD takes aim at corruption in federal agencies, including the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Communications Commission and the The world health organisation, as well as the pharmaceutical and telecom manufactures. They share information regarding vaccine safety, which was targeted by Facebook’s censorship efforts.
On CHD’s Facebook page, the social media giant lent a label stating, “This page announces about inoculations, ” along with a link to the CDC for “reliable, up to date information.”3 They too deactivated the page’s donate button — stopping fundraising campaigns — and vetoed CHD from buying online advertisements.
They also computed a warning in grey-haired overlay stating that their independent reality checkers ascertained false information, which, according to CHD, “has the intended effect of reducing both click-throughs to the underlying content and shares. The net outcome is to drastically reduce by 95% the traffic to Children’s Health Defense website.”4
By deactivating CHD’s donate button and using deceitful forms of technology like darknes banning, which is mainly interprets posts invisible to the public without the user knowing, Facebook attempted to silence CHD’s criticism of government policies and pharmaceutical products. According to CHD: 5
“In short, Facebook and the authorities concerned colluded to silence CHD and its adherents. Such tactics are fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment, which guarantees the American public the benefits to democracy from free spring of information in the marketplace of ideas.
It forbids the government from censoring private speech — particularly speech that praises government policies or officials.”
Facebook Has’ Insidious Conflicts’
CHD’s complaint quotes Facebook’s coordinated censoring campaign with WHO and the CDC, which makes on revamped meaning when you believed that such censoring began at the request of Adam Schiff, a congressman and Intelligence Committee chairman representative, who asked Facebook to “suppress and purge” the internet of content that criticized authority vaccine policies in March 2019.6
As a result, any statements that go against the U.S. government’s announcements are deemed misinformation, even if they’re genuine. Harmonizing to CHD, “Facebook has insidious conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry and its captive state the institutions and has economic posts in telecom and 5G. Facebook currently censors CHD’s page, targeting its acquit against factual information about inoculations, 5G and public health agencies.”7
After the censoring began, WHO commended Facebook for the campaign in connection with public health officials. Ironically, Zuckerberg has stated publically that it’s not the job of social media to be an arbiter of truth, yet he works with government agencies to suppress sheets that contradict the official government rhetoric. 8P TAGEND Independent Fact Checkers Aren’t Independent
CHD likewise was of the view that three of Facebook’s fact-checking collaborators — Science Feedback, Poynter Institute and PolitiFact9 — are neither independent nor fact-based, even though they describe them as such. The Poynter Institute monies itself as a “global leader in journalism” that believe that that a free press is essential. 10
PolitiFact is a branch of The Poynter Institute that says fact-checking journalism is its “heart, ”1 1 while Science Feedback is a French organization that claims it validates the “credibility” of “influential” science claims in the media. 12 One to 20 other unnamed “Does” are included in the suit. 13
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s is among those who have highlighted the overreach of Facebook’s hazardous “fake fact checking”: 14
“I have often spoken of disingenuous ‘fact checking’ endeavours conducted by conflicted third parties who are actually trying to shape public opinion and control the information the public can access …
A recent example is a popular documentary by Epoch Times about the possible link between Covid-1 9 and a research lab in Wuhan, China. The documentary structured no conclusions and the theories it discussed had not been disproven.
However, Facebook intervened to punish me and others who dared to share this factually accurate programme on Facebook. Without threatening, the social media company apprise us that our sheets were being throttled or depicted to fewer beings … Facebook also said that people touring our pages would be told we share fake news.”
Taken together, the deceptive “fact checks, ” misleading warning labels and incapacitating of the nonprofit’s donate button may violate the First and Fifth Amendments, the Lanham Act, which protects against misleading advertising and labeling, 15 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations( RICO) Act, which seeks to eradicate organized crime.
“Those statutes protect CHD against online cable scam, fraudulent disparagement and deliberately false words, ” CHD observed, contributing, “CHD asks the court to declare Facebook’s acts unconstitutional and sham, and award injunctive aid and damages.”1 6
YouTube, Twitter Also Engage in Censorship
Facebook is only one online attendance that’s controlling what you see and hear. In April 2020, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper, said YouTube would censor videos that belie WHO guidance on the pandemic or share forge or unproven coronavirus panaceas. According to Business Insider: 17
“Wojcicki says the platform will ban material peddling fake or unproven coronavirus remedies. In an interview with CNN, she also suggested that video that ‘goes against’ WHO guidance on the pandemic is likely to be blocked …
For example, she said, material that claimed vitamin C or turmeric would heal parties of COVID-1 9 would be ‘a violation of our policy’ and removed accordingly. She continued: ‘Anything that get against WHO recommendations would be a violation of our programme … ‘”
Just months later, in June 2020, YouTube started banning our videos, a majority of which are interviews with state experts sharing their medical or scientific their skills and positions on COVID-1 9. They likewise banned my video discussing WHO, and one in which I provide information about and teachings on how to use hydrogen peroxide therapy as a prophylactic against COVID-1 9.
You can still watch these videos in full on the uncensored Bitchute that many alternative media locates are now exerting for their video content. However, it’s clear that mainstream media places are targeting health information that offers alternative vistums to the government’s or Big Pharma’s.
The documentary “Plandemic” by Mikki Willis, which boasts Judy Mikovits, Ph.D ., 18 a cellular and molecular biologist whose study did indicate that numerous inoculations are polluted with gammaretroviruses, thanks to the fact that they use viruses been an increase in polluted animal cadre texts, is a prime example.
The film has been banned from social media pulpits and obstructed by Google to the extent that if you do an online search for it, all you find are dozens of pages with clauses calling it a prank, a fraud or the terrifying old-fashioned “conspiracy theory.”
Twitter likewise falsely labels Mercola article associations as unsafe and malevolent, alerting possible books my site might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer, which is absolutely false.
On the contrary, my site now has a firewall preventing Google analytic scripts from rolling on our pages, thereby protecting you from Google’s obtrusive data quarrying. Unfortunately, by declaring our pages perilous, they successfully suppress about 95% of our Twitter views.
NewsGuard Expands Its Reach
NewsGuard is another threat to the free sharing of information. It claims to rate information as reliable or fake word, giving you with a color-coded rating system next to Google and Bing scours, as well as on commodities displayed on social media.
If you rely on NewsGuard’s ratings, you may decide to wholly bounce by those with a low-grade “red” rating in favor of the “more trustworthy” green-rated articles — but NewsGuard is itself fraught with conflicts of interest, as it’s largely funded by Publicis, a world communications giant that’s partnered with Big Pharma, such that NewsGuard may be viewed more as a censorship tool than an internet watchdog.
Earlier in 2020, NewsGuard expanded its partnership with Microsoft, co-founded by Bill Gates, which will provide all users of the Microsoft Edge browser free access to its questionable ratings.
Also under the agreement is Microsoft’s continued sponsorship of NewsGuard’s news literacy program, which kept NewsGuard in more than 700 public libraries from Los Angeles to London, helping more than 7 million patrons. 19,20
NewsGuard too classified Mercola.com as hoax word because we have reported the SARS-CoV-2 virus as potentially having been seeped from the biosafety level 4( BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan City, China, the epicentre of the COVID-1 9 outbreak.
According to NewsGuard, “There is no evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the causes of the eruption, and genomic suggestion has found that the virus is 96% indistinguishable at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus.”2 1 But NewsGuard’s position is in direct come into conflict with produced scientific indication intimating this virus was created in a lab and not zoonotically transmitted.
Even British government officials have considered the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 seeped from the Wuhan facility, stating in April 2020 that the possibility of this “is no longer being discounted.”2 2
Free Speech and Ideas Are Being Threatened
Efforts to shut down public discussions about state message, including inoculation safety, are in full force. Google is lay material and videos relating to vaccine safety issues, 23 Amazon has removed movies critical of vaccine safety from its streaming service2 4 and even Pinterest has blocked rummage expressions is attributable to vaccines. 25
So, it’s crucial that organizations like CHD take a stand against the censorship of lecture, likening what’s occurring now on social media to 17 th century England, which held discussion via its monopoly on printing presses. “Here, government performers actively partnered with one of today’s heading ‘printing presses'( Facebook) to censor Plaintiff’s speech critical of government policy, ” CHD’s suit alleges. 26
What’s more, CHD observes, the case is occurring during a pandemic, when “the need for public debate on health topics has never been greater.”2 7 Let’s hope the court will take action to ensure that the free flow of information is protected.
Read more: articles.mercola.com