Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘Hate Ban’ Isn’t About Safety — It’s About His Own Ego


 

By Kevin D. Williamson
NewYorkPost.com

 

Why is Alex Jones permitted to have a telephone?

It’s a serious question.

Facebook on Thursday announced that a small assortment of kooks — Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Paul Nehlen, Louis Farrakhan — will be permanently banned from Facebook, Instagram and other platforms it controls. Jones’ publication, Infowars, also will be banned. Praise of these figures, and expressions of support for them, also are to be prohibited.

Facebook is a private company and is under no legal obligation to provide accounts to figures whose views its executives find objectionable.

But how far do we want to extend that line of thinking?

There are about 30 cellphone-service providers in the United States, although the market is dominated by four of them: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint. Federal regulation might prohibit them from discriminating against customers based on their political views, but the principle is the same. Why should Louis Farrakhan be allowed to use a telephone to spread his hateful message? Why should anybody sell him paper — or a pencil, for that matter? Think of the damage he might do with them.

Why should people with unpopular political views be allowed to have jobs? If you employ people with ugly political beliefs, you are providing financial support for the cultivation of those beliefs. Imagine your next job interview: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Communists murdered 100 million people in the 20th century. If that isn’t a hate group, I don’t know what is. In most states, there is no law against corporations discriminating against employees and job applicants for their political views.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Project Veritas Slams Twitter Execs’ Spying Claims

Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde claim direct messages aren't monitored


Twitter founder Jack Dorsey and chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde told podcast host Joe Rogan that direct messages on the social media site are not monitored — a claim challenged by investigative journalist James O’Keefe of Project Veritas.

When asked by Rogan if company employees “read direct messages,” Dorsey replied, “We don’t read direct messages.”

Gadde followed up, explaining that the only direct messages read by employees are those which have been reported to Twitter support.

Rogan pressed further, asking if it was possible for Twitter employees to intentionally peruse a user’s direct messages.

“I don’t think so,” Gadde replied.

However, according to multiple Twitter engineers who discussed the subject of direct messages with undercover Project Veritas journalists, Dorsey and Gadde may have been misleading with their answers, at best.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Facebook Insider Leaks Docs; Explains “Deboosting,” “Troll Report,” & Political Targeting in Video Interview


PROJECT VERITAS

Insider, Formerly Responsible for Content Review in Facebook’s Intellectual Property Dept Speaks Out, Loses Job
  •  Facebook Engineers Plan to “demote bad content”
  •  Conservative Facebook Page Livestreams Secretly “deboosted,” No Notice to Page Owners
  •  Facebook Can Classify Users as Trolls Based on Their Vocabulary, Then Punish By Limiting Bandwidth, Blocking Comments…
  •  Facebook Engineer: “‘hateful’ content is coming from right-leaning sites.”
  •  “Special features” Triggered “leading up to important elections”
  •  Bizarre View of “hate speech” Includes Content from Conservative Commentator


 

View the documents here.

(Update: In the video, we said Steven Crowder’s “livestream was dethrottled,” when in fact his entire page was “dethrottled.”)

(UPDATE 2: FACEBOOK RESPONDS “We fired this person a year ago for breaking multiple employment policies and using her contractor role at Facebook to perform a stunt for Project Veritas,” a spokesperson told The Verge. “Unsurprisingly, the claims she is making validate her agenda and ignore the processes we have in place to ensure Facebook remains a platform to give people a voice, regardless of their political ideology.”)

(Update 3: Project Veritas has included captions on original images in this article to avoid reader confusion.)

(San Francisco) Project Veritas has obtained and published documents and presentation materials from a former Facebook insider. This information describes how Facebook engineers plan and go about policing political speech. Screenshots from a Facebook workstation show the specific technical actions taken against political figures, as well as “[e]xisting strategies” taken to combat political speech.

(Other brave individuals who feel compelled to expose wrongdoing they witness can contact Project Veritas here.)

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said that to expose dishonesty and censorship in big tech companies, he will be relying upon more insiders, informants and leakers in the future:

“Our future depends on those who are willing to give up everything for what they believe.” 

READ MORE HERE

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Parody (Opinion Rhapsody)


A clever and competent reader sent this to us, and since Bohemian Rhapsody is out in the theaters right now (seeing it this weekend – can’t wait!), and since Bohemian Rhapsody is one of the greatest creations ever, a parody of it is only acceptable if the parody-er can actually sing.

And y’all – this dude CAN SING. Plus, he makes fun of social media culture today, and the whole thing is completely brilliant.  ENJOY!!
 

 
 
 

 

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Explaining the Stop Social Media Censorship Act


ConservativeFiringLine.com

Today’s video of the day comes to us courtesy of Chris Sevier, and explains the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, a proposal that if enacted in all 50 states, could put a significant dent in the censorship we’ve been seeing from social media giants like Facebook and Google.

As Sevier explains, the bill draws off contract law and gives users a private right of action against sites with 75 million users or more.  There are protections for social media companies built into the measure, but it also imposes a $75,000 penalty and provides for additional penalties, damages, court costs and attorney fees, basically making it extremely expensive for companies like Facebook to continue the type of censorship we’ve seen recently.

Here’s the video:

 

 
 
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Newly Revealed Email Shows Google's Bias Against Trump In 2016 Election


By Ryan Saavedra
DailyWire.com

Fox News host Tucker Carlson revealed in an exclusive segment Monday that a newly obtained email from inside Google allegedly shows the tech giant's pro-Hillary bias during the 2016 election.

"An email obtained exclusively by this show reveals that a senior Google employee deployed the company’s resources to increase voter turnout in ways she believed would help the Clinton campaign win in the last election," Carlson said.

The November 9, 2016 email obtained by Fox News reportedly came from Eliana Murillo, the former Head of Multicultural Marketing at Google.

"In her email, Murillo touts Google's multifaceted efforts to boost Hispanic in the election," Carlson said. "She knows that Latinos voted in record-breaking numbers, especially in states like Florida, Nevada, and Arizona."

Carlson reported that Murillo said that Arizona was a "key state for us," and bragged that the company "used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election."

"[Google] supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states," the email allegedly states, describing the assistance as a "silent donation."

"Murillo then says that Google helped Voto Latino create ad campaigns to promote those rides," Carlson said. "At the end of her email, Murillo makes it clear that Google was working to get Hillary Clinton elected."

"Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us," the email alleged states. "We never anticipated 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did."

"If you see a Latino Googler in the office, please give them a smile," the email allegedly continues. "They are probably hurting right now. You can rest assured that the Latinos of these blue states need your thoughts and prayers for them and their families."

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Research: Google Search Manipulation Can Swing Nearly 80 Percent of Undecided Voters


 

By Allum Bokhari
Breitbart.com

By inserting negative search suggestions under the name of a candidate, search engines like Google can shift the opinions of undecided voters by up to 43.4 percent, according to new research by a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and reported exclusively by Breitbart News.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Robert Epstein, has previously conducted research into what he calls the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). This research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic.

His latest research looks at how search engines can affect voters by suggesting negative or positive search terms when a political candidate’s name is entered into the search bar. Dr. Epstein’s research found that when negative search terms are suggested for a candidate, it can have a dramatic effect on voter opinion.

From the study:

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%).

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)