Friday, June 3, 2016

CENSORSHIP, SPYING & REPORTING OF PATRIOTS & TRUTHTELLERS BY GOVERNMENT, TECHNOLOGY GIANTS & EUROPEAN UNION TO CONTROL POLITICAL AGENDA NARRATIVE

U.S. Tech Giants Join EU to Censor the Internet
GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, TWITTER JOINS WITH EUROPEAN UNION TO CENSOR "HATE SPEECH" ACCORDING TO THEIR DEFINITION,
TO PROTECT THEIR "SUPER STATE"
OF WORLD DOMINATION
GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID (PASSWORD) TO ACCESS INTERNET COMING

Google And The FBI Have Been Collecting Your Info Longer Than You Think
Published on Jun 2, 2016
The Western media is currently full of articles reporting Google’s denial that it cooperated in a government program to massively spy on American and foreign citizens by accessing data from Google’s servers and those of other U.S. software companies.

Besides the NSA, FBI To Legally Read All Emails
Without Warrants
Published on Jun 1, 2016
The FBI will soon be legally reading anyone’s emails without the disintegrating protection of the Fourth Amendment or the issuance of a warrant.

Just for the record The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


EU PROPOSES GOVERNMENT ID TO USE INTERNET

Proposal sparks Mark of the Beast comparisons

BY KIT DANIELS
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/eu-proposes-government-id-to-use-internet/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The European Union is proposing a government ID for using the Internet which will eradicate both on-line privacy and free speech.
Spearheaded by former communist official Andrus Ansip, the European Commission published a draft document outlining its proposed electronic ID that would not only allow the EU to track what you say on-line, but also what you buy.
According to the document:
It is recognized that a multitude of username and password combinations is both inconvenient and a security risk. However, the frequent practice of using one’s platform profile to access a range of websites and services often involves non-transparent exchanges and cross- linkages of personal data between various online platforms and websites. As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognized by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards.
To sum it up, the EU wants to monitor everything Europeans do on-line by having all their Internet activities linked to a government ID which will annihilate on-line anonymity.
The program has already drawn comparisons to the ‘Mark of the Beast’ from the Book of Relevation.
“And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark—the name of the beast or the number of its name,” Revelation 13:16 read, and it’s plausible the EU will eventually propose an implantable, biometric ID.
Furthermore, Mr. Ansip is from Estonia, a former communist country which has the most advanced mandatory ID system in the world.
“Much more than simply a legal picture ID, the mandatory national card serves as the digital access card for all of Estonia’s secure e-services,” the country boasts, and without the ID, citizens cannot:
  • Travel within the EU as an Estonian citizen
  • Use national health insurance
  • Access bank accounts
  • Take public transportation
  • Or even vote
_______________________________________________________

Coming Soon! Mandatory Govt. ID To Use Internet
Published on Jun 3, 2016
The EU wants to monitor everything Europeans do on-line by having all their Internet activities linked to a government ID which will annihilate on-line anonymity.
The program has already drawn comparisons to the ‘Mark of the Beast’ from the Book of Relevation. Is this the end of the internet as we know it? And how long before
the same system becomes mandatory in America?

http://www.infowars.com/eu-proposes-g...


3 Strikes And You're Out With Coming New Internet ID
Published on Jun 4, 2016
Facebook and Twitter are censoring free speech, Bloomberg reported in an article which downplayed what’s really going on: the hijacking of the Internet to destroy national identity, culture and the free exchange of ideas in favor of an 1984-style virtual superstate.
http://www.infowars.com/facebook-twit...


U.S. Tech Giants Join EU to Censor the Internet

BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/23325-u-s-tech-giants-join-eu-to-censor-the-internet; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The world's biggest technology companies joined with the European Union to censor the Internet, announcing this week an online “Code of Conduct” that will be used to remove and prosecute “illegal” speech, while promoting government propaganda. Everything from the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran to criticism of Islam or concerns about uncontrolled immigration could fall under the vague new censorship rules. Alongside the censorship and propaganda, the EU touted “a robust system of enforcement” to effectively apply “criminal sanctions against the individual perpetrators” of illegal speech. Critics, though, are speaking out, warning of the Orwellian implications of having an unelected and unaccountable super-state attempting to overturn centuries of protections for civil liberties that are at the core of Western civilization.   
Despite being based in the United States, where the inalienable, God-given right to free speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, all of the big American Internet giants will be participating in the newly announced war against free speech online. Among the participating firms are Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google), Microsoft, and more. “The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally,” said a statement by the un-elected EU Commission, which acts as a legislative and executive branch but is not accountable to citizens or nation states. It promised vigorous censorship, criminal penalties, and lots of government propaganda.  
 Of course, the EU Big Brother and its Big Business crony partners claim the censorship will only apply to what European governments deem “illegal hate speech,” a concept introduced to the world by the mass-murdering regime ruling the old Soviet Union in its fanatical efforts to silence dissent against communism. But today, the prohibitions are even broader. More than a few EU governments have already shown conclusively that they consider, among other speech, biblical texts, speeches by giants of Western history, and more to be “illegal hate speech.” In the United Kingdom, for example, a politician was arrested for quoting former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's views on Islam. In Germany, critics of Islamic immigration recently had their apartments raided by police for expressing their views on social media. In multiple European countries, Christian pastors have literally been thrown in jail and even convicted of “hate speech” for arguing that homosexuality is a sin. And it's getting more and more extreme.   
In 2003 in Sweden, after the speech code was expanded to criminalize the traditional view of homosexuality, the "Chancellor of Justice" even investigated the Bible. The conclusion of the “investigation” of God's Word was posted online. It has since been removed from the government's website — though after this writer first wrote about it. But the official comments did not completely disappear down the “memory hole.” The book The Madhouse by Swedish author Daniel Hammarberg, which first brought the scandal to light outside of Sweden,contains the original text of the chancellor's ruling.
The “justice” official barely bothered to beat around the bush. “Does the Bible contain agitation against homosexuals? There exist statements in the Bible whose content in themselves are such that the statements, were they to be viewed in isolation, could be considered to include agitation against homosexuals [criminalized hate speech],” the bureaucrat claimed, citing a range of passages from the old and new testaments expressing God's view of homosexual acts. “It could be considered agitation against homosexuals if the statements were raised today and expressly cited in a derogatory manner against a homosexual lifestyle.” And it has been.
The Bible, in other words, could be considered hate speech under Swedish speech regulations. However, the bureaucrat was kind enough to say that, if God's Word were to be changed or rewritten, it could be made compliant with Sweden's perpetually expanding list of criminal speech — if it were done correctly. The wrong changes might justify banning the Bible. “I would like to point out that certain changes in the texts could lead to another position,” the Swedish chancellor of justice noted in the ruling on the Bible, adding that the office was limiting its probe to current official translations of the Bible into Swedish.
It was not immediately clear whether a similar investigation into the Islamic Koran or other Islamic texts has been launched, but if one has been conducted, the evidence of it has not been widely publicized. Instead, criticism of Islam is a crime across much of Europe, and truth is not a valid defense against the charges. Criticism of homosexual acts — a capital offense in Islam — is also banned. It was also not immediately clear whether the Bible, biblical texts, and the doctrines of almost every major world religion would be prohibited under the EU “Code of Conduct” for online speech. They certainly could be.  
It should not be surprising that the EU super-state, which has a ruling class packed with “former” communists from Soviet Eastern Europe who were never punished for their crimes after the ostensible collapse of communism, would be leading the charge. The tyrannical origin of hate-speech laws was highlighted in detail in a 2011 report by the respected Hoover Institution. “The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies,” the paper on the “sordid origin of hate-speech laws” explained. “Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.” Acceptance of hate-speech schemes by what remains of the free world, the report added, could have “devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.”
Nonetheless, top unelected EU bureaucrats celebrated their latest push for censorship. “The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,” claimed Vera Jourová, the EU “Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality.” “Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist [sic] use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”
Basically, you are expected to believe that Europe needs censorship to ensure “free expression,” as stated clearly by the EU's totalitarian ruling class. This is almost a textbook example of what George Orwell ridiculed in his masterpiece 1984 as “double think” — defined as, “the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.” Setting aside the absurdity, Jourová's ramblings should send a shiver down the spine of everyone who values liberty and freedom of speech. The bureaucrat is directly equating speech with terrorism. Think about what that means. In fact, as a complement to the censorship, the EU press release vowed “effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech” using a “robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech.” How long until speaking the truth or preaching the Bible is considered terrorism?
In addition to censoring “illegal” speech, the companies partnering with the autocratic EU boasted of their ability to promote government and EU propaganda. “In tandem with actioning hateful conduct that breaches Twitter’s Rules, we also leverage the platform’s incredible capabilities to empower positive voices, to challenge prejudice and to tackle the deeper root causes of intolerance,” explained Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, Karen White. “We look forward to further constructive dialogue between the European Commission, member states, our partners in civil society and our peers in the technology sector on this issue.” Executives with the other technology giants made similar pledges about censoring “illegal” speech and promoting propaganda that the establishment supports.
The EU hopes to broaden law-enforcement assaults on thought-criminals as well. To help with that, EU vice president and European commissioner for the digital single market, a former leader in the ruthless Estonian Communist Party, is promoting new decrees to require government-issued ID cards to be able to access online services. That way, anonymous speech online will become impossible, and thought-criminals can be brought to “justice” for expressing their “illegal” thoughts in words.
But not everyone is going along with the madness. Opponents of the EU plot in the European Union's pseudo-Parliament, a largely powerless rubber-stamp for “laws” developed by the commission, spoke out. “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees it’s very re-enactment live,” MEP Janice Atkinson told Breitbart London. “The Commission has been itching to shut down free speech in the Parliament and now they’re attacking social media. We have already seen Facebook ‘policing’ so-called right-wing postings. If an MEP, such as the centre-right Hungarians, the Danish People’s Party, the Finns, the Swedish Democrats, the Austrian FPO, say no to migration quotas because they cannot cope with the cultural and religious requirements of Muslims across the Middle East who are seeking refugee status, is that a hate crime? And what is their punishment? It’s a frightening path to totalitarianism.”
A British MEP, Diane James, who serves as spokesperson on justice issues for the pro-secession U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), also slammed the plan. “The Liberal tradition in Britain for instance is more open and very different from that of dictatorial former Communist countries in the East,” she told Breitbart. “The EU was sold to people as a Common Market, it became a political union and now wishes to decide and compromise our civil liberties as a people. This is unacceptable to a free people who have a right to know where all this legislation is leading to.” British voters will decide this month whether to leave the EU.
The Orwellian EU-Big Tech censorship announcement came just weeks after the United Nations Security Council called for a global “framework” to censor “extremism” from the Internet, use government propaganda, and more around the world. It also follows the announcement of a plan by Obama and the UN secretary-general for a global war on “ideologies” such as “bigotry” against Islam and opposition to immigration. The EU, meanwhile, has unveiled a new unit in its “police” agency Europol dedicated to censoring the Internet and removing “propaganda” and “extremism.” U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron even asked the UN to join a global war against “non-violent extremism,” citing as examples “conspiracy theories” and belief in religious prophecies.   
Thanks to the Internet, the globalist establishment that controls the EU, the UN, and other organs of power is no longer able to lie, manipulate, and deceive the public unchallenged. In fact, the establishment is rapidly losing its grip over the minds of the public. That is why they are scrambling to use every tool imaginable — from censorship to criminal prosecutions to demonization — to silence voices they disagree with. As the EU becomes more and more overtly totalitarian, people will almost certainly keep waking up, regardless of attempts at censorship and intimidation.
There is more good news. Fortunately for humanity, free speech in America remains protected by the First Amendment — even when Americans vehemently disagree with the speech, and even if it is ugly, it is a core Western value that the right to speak is sacrosanct. Plus, the Internet operates in such a way that censoring the truth will prove impossible as people increasingly abandon services such as Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google, and others in favor of companies and outlets that support free speech and robust debate. Already, the establishment media is imploding as people seek the truth elsewhere. The same will likely happen to the Orwellian tech giants partnering with Big Brother if they continue on this extremist path.
Related articles:
_________________________________________________

It begins: Facebook deletes page of critic of Muslim migrant invasion

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/it-begins-facebook-deletes-page-of-critic-of-muslim-migrant-invasion; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
ingrid_carlqvist
Yesterday I wrote (https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/robert-spencer-in-fp-twitter-and-facebook-vow-to-eliminate-hate-speech) that the new initiative of Twitter and Facebook to eliminate so-called “hate speech” would be directed not at jihad terrorists, or at least not solely, but also at foes of jihad terror and related issues. Now it begins. This kind of action is the death knell of free society. “CENSORED: Facebook deletes a Gatestone author’s page!,” Gatestone Institute, June 2, 2016:
Dear Readers,
On Tuesday, the European Union (EU) announced a new online speech code to be enforced by four major tech companies, including Facebook and YouTube.
On Wednesday, Facebook deleted the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert.
It’s no coincidence.
Ingrid had posted our latest video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” As you can see, Ingrid calmly lays out the facts and statistics, all of which are meticulously researched.
It’s a video version of this research paper that Gatestone published last year. The video has gone viral — racking up more than 80,000 views in its first two days.
But the EU is quite candid: it is applying a political lens to their censorship, and it now has teams of political informants — with the Orwellian title of “trusted reporters” — to report any cases of “xenophobia” or “hate speech” to Facebook for immediate deletion.
It’s political censorship. It’s outrageous. And it’s contrary to our western values of free speech, political freedom and the separation of mosque and state. But in another way, it’s a tremendous compliment — the world’s censors think that Gatestone Institute’s work is important enough and persuasive enough that it needs to be silenced.
Well, not if we have anything to say about it. We raised such a ruckus about this attack that the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.
Facebook and the EU have backed down — for today. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back….
Read the rest here.
_________________________________________________________

Microsoft's Deceptive Tactics 

Push Customers to Mac, Linux

by C. MITCHELL SHAW
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/23322-microsoft-s-deceptive-tactics-push-customers-to-mac-linux; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Over the past few months, Microsoft has maintained a course that continues to anger and alienate users. Having converted the Windows operating system into a suite of spyware tools designed to harvest users’ data through recommended updates that it has forced on users, the Redmond giant has given many of those users reason to abandon Windows for another operating system. As Windows continues to lose users, Microsoft — rather than adjust course —has instead ramped up the very tactics that angered users in the first place.
Last summer, Microsoft announced that anyone currently running Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 would be able to upgrade to the new and “improved” Windows 10 for free. Many wondered why the company would give away licenses to use the new operating system, especially considering that in the past users have paid good money to purchase new iterations of Windows. Within days of the release of Windows 10, the reason was clear: greater data-mining opportunities. The entire operating system is designed to harvest users’ data for Microsoft’s financial gain.
Despite optimistic predictions from Microsoft of one billion Windows 10 devices within three years, adoption slowed after the spyware nature of the operating system became known. In fact, there are currently still almost as many people using Windows XP as are using Windows 10. This is particularly astounding considering that Windows XP reached end-of-life — and stopped receiving security updates — more than two years ago. And even after months of Microsoft pushing its free offer, Windows 7 still has almost three times as many users as Windows 10. It appears that given the choice, many would rather have an older (in the case of Windows 7) or even increasingly unsafe (in the case of Windows XP) operating system than to accept a free upgrade to the newest version of Windows if it means giving Microsoft free run of their data.
Other users decided to jettison Windows altogether and switch to either Mac or Linux. The data indicate that most of them are switching to Linux, which is free to download and offers greater privacy and freedom to users.
Rather than miss their one-billion-user goal, Microsoft began a long and weary game of forcing the Windows 10 upgrade on users via downloads in the form of security updates. Over a period of several months, Microsoft forced one user after another to upgrade by downloading all the necessary files to their computers and scheduling the upgrade to happen automatically when the computer was rebooted. As this writer reported then:
As more and more people have become aware of the spyware nature of Windows 10, many have decided not to take Microsoft up on their "free upgrade." People all over the world decided to either switch to some other operating system (such as Linux) or just stay with Windows 7, 8, or 8.1. Now Microsoft admits that it is forcing the update to those who are using those previous versions of Windows, even if they have declined the "upgrade."
After users learned of this, many of them changed their settings to not allow the Windows 10 download masquerading as a security update. To get around those users’ choice, Microsoft changed the update from an optional update to a recommended update. More and more users were forced to accept the downloads.
Then the pop-ups began. In December, 2015, Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 users began getting notifications that all files were downloaded and it was time to approve the update to Windows 10. This notification — known as the Get Windows 10 (or GWX) pop-up — initially offered the update and gave users the choice to accept, decline, or postpone the upgrade. Even after declining the update, users continued to get the GWX pop-up at increasing intervals. Then, Microsoft changed the wording of the GWX pop-up to remove the option to decline the upgrade. The only two options were to accept or reschedule. Many — too many for Microsoft’s comfort — simply clicked the red x in the top right-hand corner and went back to what they were doing.
As if Microsoft had not already crossed the line, it has recently changed the way users accept the upgrade. The new method of saying yes? Click the x. That’s right. The method Microsoft trained users to use to rejectthe update for the past six months is now the method to accept it. And it is working. After a lag in Windows 10 adoption, it is finally picking up again, not because people are choosing Windows 10, but because Microsoft is tricking them into accepting it.
As Brad Chacos wrote for PCWorld, his wife was forced an upgrade by this method. Her response? Time to shop for a Mac. As he expressed the frustration felt by many including his wife, he wrote:
By forcing out Windows 10 as a Recommended update and changing the behavior associated with exiting the GWX pop-up, Microsoft’s actively striving to push the operating system on people who actively don’t want it.
That is not the only dirty trick Microsoft has played to increase its Windows 10 numbers, either. In March, the company rolled out a “security update” to fix a problem it had created with another update. The problem was that Bitlocker — the built-in encryption software for Windows — was crashing on machines running Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. The update (KB3133977) began causing a Secure Boot error on any system that includes an ASUS-based motherboard. Asus has been around for nearly three decades and provides motherboards for some of the biggest names in computer manufacturing. That is a lot of computers. The good news is that KB3133977 was an optional update instead of a recommended update. Because of this, it would not be a problem for many users. Then in May, Microsoft — though aware of the problem — inexplicably upgraded the update from optional to recommended, guaranteeing it would affect a much larger number of computers. Computer users all over the world began reporting that their computers would not boot after the update.
After Microsoft caused the complete failure of so many systems (along with the possible loss of data), what was the company’s response? Did it fix the problem? No. Instead, Microsoft simply recommended that those users upgrade to Windows 10, since KB3133977 does not cause any problems with that operating system. The Microsoft page for this “known issue” says:
The Secure Boot feature is supported in Windows 10. To learn more about the security advantages of this feature and about the upgrade path from Windows 7 to Windows 10, go to the following Windows website:
www.microsoft.com/windows
Let that sink in. Microsoft was aware that KB3133977 would cause the failure of any computer with an Asus motherboard before making it a recommended update. Accepting recommended updates is the default setting for Windows. Once all those users were tricked into accepting the update and it crashed their systems, Microsoft said — in essence — “Hey! You know what? You should consider upgrading to Windows 10 now that you have to reinstall everything anyway.” It’s transparently self-serving for a company to create a problem so that it can propose a “solution” that the user has repeatedly rejected.
This writer would not be surprised to see Microsoft wind up in court over some of these tactics.
The end result of all these (and other) shenanigans is that though 270 million users have switched (or have been force-switched) to Windows 10, Microsoft is steadily losing users to both Mac and Linux. Data from Net Market Share indicate that Microsoft has lost more than 14 million users in a growing market since the release of Windows 10 while both Mac and Linux have gained market share. It appears that Microsoft misjudged how willing users would be to give up their privacy.
______________________________________________________

Facebook borrowing tactic from Communist China to silence dissent and reinforce total obedience to the state

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/facebook-borrowing-tactic-from-communist-china-to-silence-dissent-and-reinforce-total-obedience-to-the-state/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
It’s a technology that only an authoritarian nation – or Left-wing social media company – would find useful.
In recent months, in case you weren’t aware – and judging by the social media giant’s rising numbers of users, you may not have been – Facebook quietly secured a patent for tech that will help filter out spam emails and so-called offensive content, while supposedly improving searches and even allowing lenders to use your social habits to determine your credit approval.
Nothing bad could happen there – right?
As reported by The Next Web, this couldn’t be more frightening, especially in light of recent reports of news feed manipulation by Facebook news curators (more on that in a moment).
Not only shouldn’t social habits determine whether or not you, personally, are good for any loans you take out, but what difference does it make whether or not your Facebook friends’ credit worthiness is or is not good? Honestly, if you’re a Facebook user, how much do you really know about your FB “friends”? Or your real friends who just happen to be on Facebook with you? I have a lot of really good friends, some of whom I served with overseas in the military, who I am “friends” with on FB – but I don’t have a clue as to how creditworthy they are.
As to the filtering of offensive content, who gets to decide what is and is not offensive? As we can see all across college campuses these days, lots of speech that is supposedly protected by the First Amendment is deemed “offensive” by Left-wing activists and the influential minds they control, and is therefore banned – filtered, if you will – from existence.
So, who would love this kind of technology? The Chinese government, for starters.
As CBS News reported in December, the government began testing a “social credit score” system that ranked citizens based on their online behavior, with an eye toward cracking down on anyone viewed as straying from, or denouncing, Communist Party doctrine.
Chilling, indeed.
The news broke as a prominent human rights lawyer went on trial in China over social media posts that were critical of the country’s one-party rule. The lawyer faced up to eight years in prison for his comments on China’s equivalent of Twitter.
“I was shocked,” said Zhang Aijia, a former school counselor. “Our country is going backwards.”
Well, that’s not necessarily true; the ruling Communists have never tolerated any dissent and, as the economy actually slows a bit, there is every indication that it will tolerate even less now.
Aijia took a jab at Chinese President Xi Jinping and within days police showed up at her school to question her. Not long after, she was fired and forced to move out of her school-provided housing.
“This is the 21st century,” Aija said in Chinese. “So why does it feel like a society with an emperor? In other countries, people can criticize, even mock leaders.”
[Remember when President Obama waxed approvingly of China’s form of government?]
China expert Ken DeWoskin said he wasn’t shocked about China’s new plan to rank citizens based on their online activity.
The government’s proposal would “evaluate the credit… and the online behavior of netizens,” he said.
“I think that it has a great deterrent effect and is intended for that purpose,” DeWoskin added. “It’s a way of compiling information all the way down to the individual level that can be rolled up into a score. That really talks about how well aligned you are to the agenda of the leaders.”
As for Facebook, it is already in the propaganda and manipulation business. Just days ago, Gizmodo reported that many of the social media giant’s news curators manipulate the content that is shown on Facebook’s highly influential “trending” section, even if the news item or subject matterisn’t trending at all.
What’s more, the feed was altered to eliminate news trending fromconservative news sources – sites that the Lefty news curators were instructed to deemphasize. So, even if news stories about conservative Republican presidential contenders were trending, Facebook users might end up with “Black Lives Matter” stories, even if the FB algorithm did not identify them.
Are you starting to see a pattern? What the authoritarian Left doesn’t like (such as dissent) or doesn’t agree with (such as a different political points of view) it seeks to downplay or eliminate, not engage.
_______________________________________________________





at