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

Austin Fletcher, creator of “Fleccas Talks,” went to Ohio State University on Tuesday to cover the far-left and Antifa protesting Jewish conservative figure Ben Shapiro.

 

By Chris Donaldson
ILoveMyFredom.org

In one of the sadder commentaries on the state of political discourse in America, there have been numerous incidents where a person wearing a red “Make America Great Again” ballcaps has been refused service in restaurants or even attacked.

In a country where some now view even the American flag as a symbol of hate and oppression, it is the hat made popular by then-candidate Donald Trump during his historic campaign that is the most despised apparel item in the land and with the rise of mob behavior, wearing it can put a person in danger.

Perhaps the most familiar incidents were the 16-year-old teen getting a drink thrown in his face at a Texas Whataburger and a black customer being harassed by the staff at a Florida Cheesecake Factory but these are indicative of a disturbing pattern that flies in the face of such longstanding American traditions such as free speech and freedom of expression.

However, there still are Americans who value our freedoms and one of those happens to be wearing a hat in public that is neither obscene nor promotes violence and several of these folks turned up in a brilliant social experiment that was staged and filmed by ABC for an episode of the hit show “What Would You Do?”

This is totally brilliant if you missed it the first time.

 

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

By Allum Bokhari
Breitbar.com

Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.

But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

The briefing labels the ideal of unfettered free speech on the internet a “utopian narrative” that has been “undermined” by recent global events as well as “bad behavior” on the part of users. It can be read in full below.

It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers. “This free speech ideal was instilled in the DNA of the Silicon Valley startups that now control the majority of our online conversations,” says the document.

Someone leaked to Breitbart an hour-long video of an “all hands” Google meeting that was held just after the 2016 election. The video features Google’s co-founder, Sergei Brin, its CEO, Sundar Pichai, and numerous other high-ranking “Googlers” speaking in turn about the election’s tragic outcome. It is stunning.

All of the speakers express grief over Donald Trump’s election. All of the speakers assume that every Google employee is a Democrat and is stunned and horrified that Hillary Clinton–the worst and most corrupt presidential candidate in modern history–lost. There is much discussion about what Google can do to reverse the benighted world-wide tide exemplified by Brexit and Trump’s election. The insane doctrine of “white privilege” rears its head.

You really have to see it to believe it. Having suffered through the hour-long cri de cœur–OK, to be fair, there is a huge element of schadenfreude, too, and you will relish much of it–you probably will have several reactions: 1) These people may have certain valuable technical skills, but they aren’t very bright and are unusually lacking in self-awareness. 2) It is remarkable that they can achieve such an extraordinary monoculture in an organization with thousands of employees. It must require vigorous enforcement of right-think. 3) It is easy to see how these uniformly left-wing robots/people seamlessly transitioned into Resisting the duly elected Trump administration.

Here is the video, then a final comment:

 

This is the most comprehensive report produced by CNS News and details, what may be one of the greatest threats to free speech in American history,” Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell explains in a video highlighting MRC’s study on social media censorship.

 

By Thaddeus G. McCotter
AmericanGreatness.com

 

For many, the most arduous aspect of supporting free speech is the principled requirement to defend disagreeable speech; moreover, the degree of difficulty in defending free speech increases in proportion to the detestable nature of the individual or entity uttering said offensive speech.

Yet we must. For to infringe upon the free speech rights of one, however loathsome, is to endanger the free speech rights of all. And, really, who doesn’t like to do a little bitching?

Therefore, let us examine a pundit-class kerfuffle to prove how it is possible and necessary to defend free speech, regardless of how unsavory we deem the speaker.

Recently in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman opined that the optimal way to defeat President Trump was for America

to see every [Trump] tweet, every rally, every word and every reaction so that they can ask themselves: “Is this who I want my kids to see as our president? Are these the people with whom I want to be aligned?” It’s too late to move Trump’s core base on these questions, but I would not give up on his passive supporters.

One of the entities Friedman would give up on is, of course, Fox News. Not surprisingly, one Fox News wag didn’t take this sitting down (though it is what he does all day on television).

Greg Gutfeld, the author of a glorified travel brochure, Lessons from the Land of Pork Scratchings: A Miserable Yank Finds Happiness in the UK (among other impenetrable tracts), disagreed with Friedman’s conclusion; and, alternately, argued such ubiquitous coverage had and would continue to help President Trump:

What a great idea. Because remember what happened the last time the media covered every tweet, every rally, every word in every reaction of Donald Trump? . . . They elected Donald Trump…So telling the media to focus on Trump’s behavior, you are in effect saying “hey, remember how we elected Trump in 2016? Let’s do it again.”

Not in the mood to be contradicted by an “active” Trump supporter, Friedman appeared on CNN and declared Gutfeld a “moron.”

Somewhat evasively (he never refuted the charge), Gutfeld nonetheless fired off a Pershing II of a tweet at Friedman’s host cable station: “Ha [sic] sorry I missed it. I was doing a hit on a network people actually watch!”

Yes, because it is so often messy in practice, sometimes amid the pundit classes’ pillow fights it is easy to miss that we have witnessed a principled exchange of free speech. True, the above exchange is less than courteous. Nevertheless, neither Friedman nor Gutfeld is demanding that his antagonist be silenced, for instance by imploring Twitter Jack to eradicate a tweet or suspend an account (which he is more than happy to do these days, if one is a conservative).

No, what we have is Gutfeld lampooning Friedman’s argument and his host cable station, and Friedman dismissing Gutfeld as a “moron.” We, the public, can determine who is right or wrong; and who we will listen to on what station or social media platform.

And, thus, is free speech practiced and protected.

Lads, a pint, pork scratchings, and a round of applause for you in spite of yourselves!

 

Photo Credit: Sean Zanni/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images