Twitter and Facebook censorship defending Oligarchy?

Intentionally or not, social media is using incitement of violence to justify massive amounts of censorship that often restricts research that can reduce violence, expose wars based on lies, or expose corporate fraud, and much more. They often don't even know what they're censoring, since it's heavily automated!

The internet was promoted as a massive improvement that could help even the rights to free speech, although it never worked out quite that way. For a while a small fraction of people paying attention to issues and familiar with it took advantage of it, and it was supposedly a great tool to spur democratic revolutions, including the Arab Spring.

But now there's a major effort going on to roll that back by dramatically increasing censorship and consolidate the control of many of the biggest platforms under authoritarian control.

I was blocked about a month ago on Twitter, for "violating the rules," initially without saying which rule I violated, it took a couple days before I got a cut and past response, which may also have been automated for all I know, saying that it was for "abusive behavior," which I'm sure I didn't do, and that I would be blocked for the "allotted time;" but they didn't specify what I allegedly did that was abusive or what the "allotted time" was.

It appears as if this is part of a major automated system that is doing an enormous amount of their censorship.

Even though a lot of it is automated there's some evidence that they're using claims of Russian collusion or manifestos by mass shooters as an excuse for mass censorship and a lot of it is benefiting the oligarchs that already control well over ninety percent of the mass media. there are six corporations that control over ninety percent of the national media and at least half a dozen or more of the biggest media outlets not owned by these corporations, including the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, the Boston globe, and many more are own by billionaires. They're all for profit organizations and even the few that aren't run by billionaires are accountable to stockholders, and those that own the most are the richest, which means billionaires or people worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The primary motive for these people clearly seems to be to make themselves richer and maintain control of the majority of speech used to make major political decisions.

They're not nearly as concerned with reporting the most effective research to reduce violence, instead relying on censorship to suppress opinions they oppose, which may occasionally suppress some efforts to incite violence; however it's also suppressing research to reduce it by explaining how it starts as a result of early child abuse, poverty epidemic levels of incomes inequality, boot camp indoctrination in the military designed to teach cadets to blindly obey orders and solve problems with violence.

A large part of what I do on social media is promoting articles that expose the leading causes of violence and how to reduce it; so by censoring me instead of preventing speech that is designed to incite violence they're suppressing speech that might prevent it, or at least that's what I think, and they don't address and details at all. Instead they keep sending me the same cut and paste message, without telling me what the "allotted time" is or what I allegedly did that was allegedly "abusive behavior"

Hello,

We’re writing to let you know that your account features will remain limited for the allotted time due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules against abusive behavior.

To ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs on our platform, we do not tolerate behavior that crosses the line into abuse. This includes behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another person's voice.

Please note that continued abusive behavior may lead to the suspension of your account. To avoid having your account suspended, please only post content that abides by the Twitter Rules: https://help.twitter.com/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules#abusive-behavior.

Thanks,

Twitter

It took me three days just to find out they claim I used "abusive behavior" which I'm sure I did not, the rules say it's to threaten people or threaten to commit acts of terrorism, which I certainly didn't do; it also says that I "may not affiliate with organizations that .... use or promote violence against civilians" which I didn't knowingly do; however, I would have no way of knowing if I did and it was brief, nor would anyone else.

Even if I did one of these things they could at least let me know what it is that I allegedly did. Instead they keep sending me the same cut and past response without acknowledging my obvious questions, what did I do that was allegedly "abusive behavior" and what is the "allotted time?" some of the responses that come instantly are obviously automated, but these E-mails take several days, and still don't answer any questions. supposedly they take so long because someone is checking it, but there's no evidence that anyone is and this might all be cut and paste as fast as they can.

this is one of a variety of ways to regulate speech for the vast majority of the public while a small fraction has total control of the mass media, giving speech that increases profits or promotes wars based on lies a major advantage over speech that exposes fraud by major corporations or the lies leading us into war.

This isn't limited to me, or to total censorship; there are a lot of organizations that promote social activities that are good for the vast majority of the public, but can't get any air time on television, including other people trying to educate about how early child abuse leads to escalating violence, opponents of the death penalty, defenders of Palestinians, other war protesters exposing many lies leading us into war, defenders or workers rights and many other grassroots organizations that can't afford to pay massive amounts of money for advertising.

The mainstream media doesn't do a remotely good job covering any of these subjects, or many more; every-time I look into good non-fiction books on any given subject I find much better material than what they provide, and often find that they make blatantly false or misleading claims about them; including the most effective ways to reduce violence, which I've posted many articles about and often tweeted them or provided links on Facebook.

For example, yesterday there was another school shooting killing one more person and injuring half a dozen or so, and the mainstream media has gone into the same routine obsessively talking about gun control and ignoring all other contributing causes, perhaps briefly mentioning mental illness, without talking about what causes it or how to prevent it. I went into this many times, including after the Parkland shooting where I posted Prevention of violence has to address all causes, not just Guns! which pointed out that although reasonable gun control could be part of the solution it's not even close to being the only one, or the most important one. Yet the media implies or states that the only possible way they're willing to discuss stopping these shootings is by trying to catch them at the last minute often by shooting them before they can kill more people.

this article points out many different causes of violence, including early child abuse leading to escalating violence later in life, since it teaches violence and abused children are much more likely to become abusers as adults if not treated, which is almost certainly the most important contributing factor; poverty, income inequality, abandoned inner cities with little or not educational or economic opportunities, and much more. some of the best researchers including James Garbarino, Barbara Coloroso, Jonathan Kozol and many more have reported on how to reduce violence by preventing early abuse or providing adequate funds for education and their research is available in most libraries, but the vast majority of the public doesn't read many, if any good non-fiction books, instead getting their news and educational material from the mainstream media; which never discusses many of these factors or gives good researchers like them an opportunity to get their views across.

Louis D. Brandeis once said "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." However by allowing the mainstream media to be controlled by six for profit oligarchs that don't event try to discuss the most effective research on any given subject, unless it increases profits for those that are already wealthy it totally disregards this and the purpose of the first Amendment!



We have good research about how to prevent violence but the vast majority of the public never hears about it, and in some cases instead of preventing people from inciting violence Twitter, and presumably Facebook are preventing people from talking about how to prevent that violence!

This also goes for speech to criticize wars based on lies or government activities like their response to the Branch Davidians at Waco as the following article points out:

Facebook censored me. Criticize your government and it might censor you too. 10/27/2017 by James Bovard

Facebook said my post's image of a violent FBI raid 'incorrectly triggered our automation tools.' But it wasn't the first time an iconic image vanished.

Responding to Russian-funded political advertisements, Facebook chairman Mark Zuckerberg declared last month that “we will do our part to defend against nation states attempting to spread misinformation.” But Facebook is effectively sowing disinformation by kowtowing to foreign regimes and censoring atrocities such as ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. In the name of repressing fake news and hate speech, Facebook is probably suppressing far more information than Americans realize.

Facebook blocked a post of mine last month for the first time since I joined it nine years ago. I was seeking to repost a blog article I had written on Janet Reno, the controversial former attorney general who died last year. I initially thought that Facebook was having technical glitches (no novelty). But I checked the page and saw the official verdict: “Could not scrape URL because it has been blocked.”

“Pshaw!” I said, or some other one-syllable epithet. I copied the full text of the article into a new blog post. Instead of using “Janet Reno, Tyrant or Saint?” as the core headline, I titled it: “Janet Reno, American Saint.” Instead of a 1993 photo of the burning Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, I substituted an irreproachable official portrait of Reno. Bingo — Facebook instantly accepted that crosspost. I then added a preface detailing the previous blockage and explaining why I sainted Reno. The ironic headline attracted far more attention and spurred a torrent of reposts by think tanks and other websites. Complete article

The two leading justifications for all this censorship are the alleged Russian interference in our elections by stealing the DNC and John Podesta E-Mails exposing how they were rigging the nomination process in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and the manifestos from numerous mass shooters. The Russian conspiracy theory ignores the simple fact that no candidate can win the election without getting name recognition; and the mainstream media routinely ensures that most candidates never get the coverage they need to get that name recognition as I pointed out in More Censored Candidates From The Underground. It wasn't Russia that gave Donald Trump the mane recognition that he needed over the decades and increased it even more in 2015-6 to provide obsession coverage, while presenting the same establishment candidates that people were outraged with, it was mainstream media in our own country!

And even without false flag conspiracy theories about these mass shooters there's plenty of evidence to show how to reduce violence and make all these shootings far less likely like I pointed out in the article about Parkland shooting and another one about some other mass shooters, including some that wrote manifestos about their motives as I pointed out in Driving People to "Go Out In A Blaze Of Glory" isn't working so well, including Joe Stack who wrote about how the economic system was rigged against him leading him to fly a plane into the IRS building killing one other person besides himself, two shootings against police officers in 2016.

They also have a history of censoring people campaigning for candidates the establishment opposes like Jeanette Jing who was blocked for a week or so during the 2016 campaign, and Bernie sanders supported raised a viral protest about her, until the restored her account; and in past articles about the presidential candidates that the media refuses to cover I pointed out that on several occasions they were blocked; a progressive reporting Kansas City officials poured bleach on food meant for people who are homeless, rather than let a community org serve food without a permit was blocked; and many more most of which I've never heard of, but I know I've heard of dozens more without listing them including Saif Deen Bitar who is currently being blocked for allegedly using several accounts to abuse people, although what I've seen of his account is speaking out against Israeli occupation of Palestinians.

I'm not aware of any evidence to show he uses multiple accounts, and haven't seen him be abusive, unless you consider exposing Israeli atrocities to be abusive, nor are many of his Twitter followers who are raising another campaign to get him reinstated.

However according to USA Today Israel has been doing this for years giving overwhelming advantages to well funded propaganda! Israel to pay students to defend it online 08/14/2013

And the Intercept has reported that Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments 12/30/2017 and The Koch brothers are funding Facebook’s newest fact-checking partner 04/29/2019 clearly indicating that the truth is at least partly if not entirely for sale on Facebook and Twitter like it is on the mainstream media that gives overwhelming preferential treatment to for profit ads even when they're based on fraud over small researchers that are looking out for the best interest of the majority of the public.

Ajamu Baraka has correctly tweeted that By becoming partisans, the liberal corporate tech companies have entered dangerous grounds with their open censoring of political content & limitations on speech. They are making case for those platforms to be publicly owned where 1st amendment standards can be applied. 05/07/2019 However this isn't likely to work while the elections continue to be rigged by mainstream media by only covering candidates they support, ensuring that ones that might deprive them of unjustifiable control of the mass media or social media platforms and enabling the vast majority of the public to have equal rights to free speech! In order to prevent these oligarchs from censoring speech, in addition to either public ownership or heavy regulation to prevent this censorship we'll also have to elect candidates that actually want to defend censorship, and the current system is rigged to ensure we can't do that!



Noam Chomsky once said "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” which at times I've doubted, because even though it sounded good, when he said it he was defending the rights of white supremacists to speak even though he disagreed with them, on the premise that they would censor progressive speech nest, and the mainstream media enabled them to get plenty of speech, but didn't cover progressive voices. If it worked as Noam Chomsky intended it would have made sense, but it hasn't always worked that way. But now they are doing exactly what Noam Chomsky warned against, while they're speaking loudly about banning Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan as reported in many media outlets what's not being reported is that many more people are being purged or censored with little or no attention!

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan And Other 'Dangerous' Individuals 05/03/2019

Right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan are running out of places to espouse their views online.

Facebook banned these high-profile personalities and several others from its social media platforms Thursday, becoming the latest tech company to officially declare them persona non grata. Many of them have already been banned from Twitter, YouTube and Apple's Podcasts app.

In addition to Jones and Farrakhan, Facebook also kicked out right-wing extremists Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer and Joseph Watson, who works for InfoWars; white supremacist Paul Nehlen, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2016 and 2018; and Jones' company, Infowars. The groups will also lose their accounts on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook.

"We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," Facebook said in a statement, according to The Verge. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today." Complete article

They're very selective about who they censor, refusing to censor Donald Trump when he routinely incites violence or Matt Gaetz; when James Bovard was censored he was able to write about it and get reinstated, there's a chance that Saif Deen Bitar might get reinstated if enough attention is drawn to him; but the vast majority of people that are being censored by either Facebook or Twitter have little or no opportunity to draw so much attention to there problems, even if it's a result of automated systems or false accusations especially from powerful organizations. there have been numerous articles, including some listed below showing that there are much more progressives being censored than most people are aware of; however they're probably not widely circulated; I wouldn't have found most of them if I didn't search specifically for them.

Like many other people I was vaguely aware there was a problem, but didn't realize how big it was until it happened to me, although when there was attention to it after Jeanette Jing I did join in retweeting requests to reinstate her and perhaps a few other people.

We already have way to much censorship with mainstream media owned by a fraction of one percent that refuses to provide coverage for the majority of honest candidates and the best research on many given subjects; allowing this to continue can ensure that the internet will only add to the rigging of the economic system and elections, ensuring that the grassroots can't overcome this easily if at all!

James Woods is one of the few celebrities that have actually been banned for a variation of a famous Ralph Waldo Emerson quote, but at least they told him why and supposedly all he has to do is remove the Tweet to get reinstated, although they could simply remove it them selves, as they often do; but this is about power and indoctrination, not preventing incitement of violence otherwise they would suppress it when Trump Gaetz, or Israelis do it!



I'm not recommending that anyone be censored, but the obviously selective way they do it clearly indicates it's not about preventing violence; or if they actually believe their own propaganda they're incredibly incompetent and accomplishing the opposite of what they're trying.

Apparently Chris Hughes, Mark Zuckerberg's co-founder is now calling for the break up of Facebook, supposedly so it's subject to competition; however this wouldn't provide direct accountability to the public, like many other free market systems are supposed to do, yet don't because of collusion or some other reason. Ajamu Baraka also pointed this out responding by saying, "The issue with FaceBook, Twitter & Google is that breaking them up is not enough. Their power & now open partisan collaboration with the state by engaging in political censorship represents an existential threat to critical speech & thought."

In addition to increasing diverse views in social media, including some of the best research on many different subjects, we also need much more diverse coverage in the traditional media, which means requiring mass media to provide coverage for all candidates applying for public office and enabling good researchers to educate the public instead of non-stop propaganda. If we can have dozens of channels selling us useless garbage with fraudulent ads we can find a way to get some of the good research available in libraries and universities on to the media, when most people get their information.

There may be another major factor, involving the source of this technology and how it developed so rapidly, to this as well, but even without considering this there's no doubt that allowing a minuscule fraction of the public to control over ninety percent of speech and technology, enabling them to censor opposing views is unacceptable in a democratic society, without considering possible major unsolved mysteries. In James Bovard's article above, he writes that Facebook has automated blocking system that was able to recognize the picture of a Vietnamese girl running naked after being poisoned with napalm. This is just one of many incredibly advanced technological abilities that have been developed in a surprisingly short time.

How were tech giants able to develop this technology so rapidly, in just a few decades, or in many cases just a few years, when it took our civilization thousands of years to slowly develop much more primitive technology.

Very few people even think about this; however, the answer is almost certainly not as simple as the establishment claims, assuming they discuss it at all. As I pointed out in Do Aliens own Stock in Monsanto, DuPont, or Microsoft? and Who's Controlling Oligarchies Dividing The Market? Aliens? this is just one of many major unsolved mysteries, including how ancient civilizations were able to move massive megaliths over seven hundred tons despite fact that experiments prove that they could only replicate it for megaliths up to ten tons and cheated when they tried to move them between ten and forty tons without even trying anything bigger.

This subject seems insane to most people partly because the mainstream media doesn't even cover it seriously, if they cover it at all with articles like Alien abduction: an unlikely solution to the climate crisis 04/29/2019 and How angry pilots got the Navy to stop dismissing UFO sightings 04/25/2019 being very poorly done, yet they're among the best that are available to the public, and they don't circulate very widely. The best known reporting on it comes from the History Channel, which looks incredibly absurd with so=-called experts making one obvious blunder after another making me believe they're not even trying to cover the best science.

There may have been times decades ago where they occasionally did a better job covering this subject, but at that time one of the strongest arguments against it was that other habitable planets are just too far away and it's not possible for other lifeforms to get here. Now thanks to all this rapidly developing technologies, many of the obstacles preventing interstellar travel have been overcome, even if life as we know it can't travel in one lifetime to another solar system artificial intelligence, nano technologies advanced propulsion and much more technology indicates that some form of space travel is almost certainly possible.

It opens up many more possibilities, but whether it's local censorship of some kind of influence by aliens we need to reform our democracy so that everyone has equal rights to free speech, and if some preferential treatment is given to anyone, it shouldn't be based solely on who's the riches, perhaps giving some of the best researchers better opportunities to be heard, including researchers with opposing views!

Mark Zuckerberg may not have said this; however the actions of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies clearly indicates they seem to believe it!

This is just one of the photos Saif Deen Bitar has been posting which I was able to retrieve from Google, although if twitter censors him too long, most of his pictures will no longer be available, like his tweets.

Why Did Facebook Purge TeleSUR English? 08/15/2018

Facebook censors Telesur and Venezuela Analysis 08/17/2018

Mark Zuckerberg Pledges to Spend More in War on Hate Speech 10/30/2018

Facebook Will Ramp Up Censorship Leading Up To The Midterm Elections 10/16/2018

Facebook will ban misinformation around voting during the midterm elections 10/15/2018

PLEASE RT, help our friend. #StopTheBias Same rules for everyone, we will not stop until you unsuspend @BitarDeen @TwitterSupport #Palestine 05/03/2019

Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple slapped with class-action lawsuit over conservative censorship 09/04/2018

Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users 10/16/2018

`Trump Demands Facebook and Twitter Ban MSNBC And CNN 05/04/2019 Trump wants some of the most prominent free press outlets banned from Twitter and Facebook, but pro-Trump propagandists, conspiracy theorists, and hate speech peddlers should have an amplified platform. The president’s demand is in line with an authoritarian view of the press. Trump does not believe in press freedom. He wants a media does not challenge or investigate him.

Pages purged by Facebook were on blacklist promoted by Washington Post 10/13/2018 The organizations censored by Facebook include The Anti-Media, with 2.1 million followers, The Free Thought Project, with 3.1 million followers, and Counter Current News, with 500,000 followers. All three of these groups had been on the blacklist.

The ‘Washington Post’ ‘Blacklist’ Story Is Shameful and Disgusting 11/28/2016

Matt Gaetz will face investigation by Florida Bar grievance committee over menacing Michael Cohen tweet 05/08/2019

Facebook Co-Founder Says Company Is ‘Dangerous,’ Should Be Broken Up 05/09/2019

Facebook’s New Propaganda Partners 09/25/2018 Media giant Facebook recently announced (Reuters, 9/19/18) it would combat “fake news” by partnering with two propaganda organizations founded and funded by the US government: the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The social media platform was already working closely with the NATO-sponsored Atlantic Council think tank (FAIR.org, 5/21/18).

In a previous FAIR article (8/22/18), I noted that the “fake news” issue was being used as a pretext to attack the left and progressive news sites. Changes to Facebook’s algorithm have reduced traffic significantly for progressive outlets like Common Dreams (5/3/18), while the pages of Venezuelan government–backed TeleSur English and the independent Venezuelanalysis were shut down without warning, and only reinstated after a public outcry.