Youtube Bets $300 Million To Become Top Content Provider For ‘Authoritative’ News

Youtube is dominating the global news cycle by providing and pushing what it determines is ‘authoritative news’. The Google News Initiative will invest up to $100 million per year for the next three years to lifting up ‘quality journalism.’ Internally, they are developing a working group of newsrooms to crank out their own news stories.  ⁃ TN Editor

Following a year in which YouTube has repeatedly promoted conspiracy theory videos during breaking news events like the shootings in Parkland, Florida, and Las Vegas, on Monday the company announced a slew of new features it hopes will help makes news on the platform more reliable and less susceptible to manipulation. The company is also investing $25 million in grants to news organizations looking to expand their video operations as part of a larger, $300 million program sponsored by YouTube’s sister company, Google.

According to YouTube executives, the goal is to identify authoritative news sources, bring those videos to the top of users’ feeds, and support quality journalism with tools and funding that will help news organizations more effectively reach their audiences. The challenge is deciding what constitutes authority when the public seems more divided than ever on which news sources to trust—or whether to trust the traditional news industry at all.

Among the many changes YouTube announced Monday are substantive tweaks to the tools it uses to recommend news-related videos. In the coming weeks, YouTube will start to display an information panel above videos about developing stories, which will include a link to an article that Google News deems to be most relevant and authoritative on the subject. The move is meant to help prevent hastily recorded hoax videos from rising to the top of YouTube’s recommendations. And yet, Google News hardly has a spotless record when it comes to promoting authoritative content. Following the 2016 election, the tool surfaced a WordPress blog falsely claiming Donald Trump won the popular vote as one of the top results for the term “final election results.”

YouTube is also expanding a feature, currently available in 17 countries, that shows up on the homepage during breaking news events. This section of the homepage will only surface videos from sources YouTube considers authoritative. The same goes for the videos that YouTube recommends viewers watch next.

These changes attempt to address the problem of misinformation online without adding more human moderators. With some 450 hours of video going up on YouTube every minute, “human curation isn’t really a viable solution,” Neal Mohan, YouTube’s chief product officer, told reporters Monday.

Traditionally, YouTube’s algorithm has prioritized a user’s personal viewing history, as well as the context of the video that user is currently watching, when deciding what videos to surface next. That can be problematic because, as researchers have found, once you watch one conspiracy-theory video claiming that the student survivors of the Parkland shooting are crisis actors, YouTube may recommend you watch even more. With this change, the company is trying to interrupt that downward spiral. It’s important to note, though, that YouTube is applying that standard only to breaking news and developing stories. For all other videos users find on YouTube, the recommendation engine will work the old-fashioned way, which, YouTube executives acknowledge, may well turn up content that people find objectionable.

“There are going to be counter points of view, and there’s going to be [videos] where people who have a conspiratorial opinion are going to express them,” Mohan says. “What I think we can do is, instead of telling users what to think, give them as much information as possible, so that they can make those decisions themselves.”

To that end, YouTube is also beginning to implement its previously announced partnerships with Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica, which it will use to fact-check more evergreen conspiracy theories about, say, the moon landing or the Bermuda Triangle. Those videos will now feature an information panel with context from either Encyclopedia Brittanica or Wikipedia. For the moment, though, these panels are being applied only to a small subset of videos that, Mohan says, “tend to be accompanied by misinformation,” meaning they’re hardly a cure-all for the vast quantities of new and less predictable misinformation being uploaded to YouTube every day.

Read full story here…




Major Labor Union Joins Coalition To Regulate Facebook

For every regulation imposed there are 10 ways to get around it, and Technocrats at Facebook have proven themselves to be very agile. Free market forces are the best way to curtail Facebook by simply refusing to pay money to it. Meanwhile, many other alternatives are popping up that will take market share away from Facebook. ⁃ TN Editor

The leading U.S. communications union is joining a coalition calling for the Federal Trade Commission to break up and regulate Facebook.

Bloomberg reports that the Communications Workers of America (CWA), the top U.S. communications union, has joined the Freedom From Facebook coalition. “We should all be deeply concerned by Facebook’s power over our lives and democracy,” said Brian Thorn, a researcher for CWA, which currently has approximately 700,000 members. In an email to Bloomberg, Thorn stated that for the FTC to not break Facebook up and impose stronger privacy regulations “would be unfair to the American people, our privacy, and our democracy.”

Facebook is currently being investigated by the FBI, the SEC, the FTC and the Department of Justice in relation to user privacy issues following the Cambridge Analytica user data leak which allegedly involved the personal information of 87 million Facebook users left vulnerable.

The CWA currently represents workers for a number of companies, such as AT&T, but does not currently represent Facebook employees. CWA communications director Beth Alen discussed the union’s ability to influence regulatory processes saying in an interview: “There’s a lot of public pressure around this issue. We hope to increase that public pressure around it, and I’m fairly optimistic that there is an appetite for making some progress there.”

Allen further stated that Facebook is “a whole new kind of entity that I think regulators are struggling to keep up with,” noting that the company has such a wide-range of businesses that fall under the Facebook brand, such as WhatsApp, Instagram and many more.

Read full story here…




Facebook Shows Anti-Christian Bias By Denying Gospel Music Video As ‘Political Content’

The fact that Facebook apologized for being caught with two high-profile censorship ‘oversights’, is meaningless. The real question is, how many thousands or tens of thousands of videos and posts have been removed without resistance or public outcry? The public will be pacified by Facebook’s contrition even as it ratchets up its AI censorship program. ⁃ TN Editor

Facebook’s recent crackdown on advertising it considers political has already affected news publishers and small businesses like hair salons and day-care centers.

Now a gospel music group can be added to the list.

Last month, Zion’s Joy!, a vocal ensemble from Indianapolis, posted a video to its Facebook page for a new song, “What Would Heaven Look Like.” The video opens with images of strife and protests — including scenes of demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia — as the group sings lines including, “I know it might feel like this trouble will stay, but this world will soon fade away.”

“We want to touch people’s hearts and let people know that we can do better than the world is doing right now,” Robert W. Stevenson, the group’s founder, said in an interview.

After a week, Zion’s Joy! decided to promote the video by paying Facebook for a “boost.” That’s when the social media giant’s algorithm flagged “What Would Heaven Look Like” as “political content” and blocked the video altogether, Stevenson said.

In a statement, a Facebook spokeswoman said Thursday that its political ad policy is “new, broad and exists to prevent election interference, so we’re asking people with content that falls under those rules to simply get authorized and show who paid for the ad in order for it to run.”

“Separately,” the statement continued, “we made an error by deleting the original post. As soon as we identified what happened, we restored the post since it does not violate our Community Standards and have apologized to Zion’s Joy.”

The removal of the video is only the latest example of how Facebook’s rules for identifying political content — tightened in the wake of political pressure over the company’s role in the 2016 presidential election — have labeled various forms of content as political, stirring objections from users and publishers.

The New York Times has complained that its paid promotions for its reporting on politics — and even for posts on subjects as innocuous as a cake recipe — have been treated as political advertising by Facebook. More recently, Facebook notified a publisher in Texas that it had violated the social network’s standards on hate speech by posting an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence. (In the company’s defense, the excerpt included the term “Indian Savages,” and Facebook told Gizmodo it had removed the post “by mistake and restored it as soon as we looked into it.”)

Under Facebook’s new rules, all “election-related and issue ads” — including posts that are promoted through paid boosts — must contain a disclosure about who paid for them, and the ads will be collected into a searchable archive.

The first 30 seconds of the four-minute video for “What Would Heaven Look Like” include scenes of protesters crying, waving the American flag and being carried away in stretchers. There is also a brief image of a demonstrator, standing in front of a building bearing a Trump logo, who is holding a sign critical of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The rest of the video, for the most part, shows the group’s singers lip-syncing in a recording studio and on a rooftop.

Read full story here…




Facebook Is Fact-Checking Conservative Sites into Oblivion

This is a very important story to understand because Facebook, et. al., have found a new tool to destroy alternative media: ‘fact checking.’ Facebook’s third-party fact checkers hardly know one end of truth from the other, but they make hard assertions in spite of it.  ⁃ TN Editor

Facebook announced last year that they will be using third-party fact-checkers to root out “fake news” on their platform. At the time of the announcement, conservatives sounded the alarm about how some of the fact-checkers they’re using are left-wing hacks like PolitiFact and Snopes (who recently, with straight facesfact-checked a piece of satire from The Babylon Bee).

A recent warning that accompanied an article I wrote for PJM highlights the fallibility of Facebook’s fact-checking program:

Why a Canadian outfit is fact-checking U.S. news is anyone’s guess, but they clearly flagged my article in error. [It was brought to my attention after this article was published that AFP Canada is part of France’s state-run Agence France-Presse, so let me rephrase that question: Why has Facebook chosen a state-run French news outlet to fact-check U.S. news?]

You can read the article in question here. Facebook deprioritized my article after AFP Canada reported this:

No, it is not illegal to take a shower and do laundry on the same day in California

While some media outlets did indeed report (more or less) falsely that California had made it illegal to shower and do laundry on the same day, I made no such claims. In fact, having seen other reporting making that claim (stretching the truth a bit, in my opinion) I conscientiously avoided making it. I merely laid out the facts about a typical family’s water usage and concluded that the 55-gallon-per-day water limit recently imposed on Californians “may” force them to choose between showering and doing laundry on the same day. Nevertheless, Facebook, relying on AFP’s article, apparently lumped mine in with those that stretched the truth a bit, even though the AFP article never mentioned PJ Media. They did, however, single out articles by Zero Hedge, Washington Times, and a local San Diego news station.

The article from AFP Canada made the following claims:

The new laws do set the following “standards” in future years for indoor residential water use:

  • From 2022 to Jan. 1, 2025, the standard volume is 55 gallons per capita per day
  • From Jan.1, 2025, this standard is reduced to 52.5 gallons per capita per day
  • From Jan. 1, 2030, the standard is reduced to 50 gallons per capita per day

However keyword searches of both laws, found here and here show there is no mention of laundry nor having a shower.

I quoted the bill directly in my piece so there would be no confusion as to what was included in the new standards and when they would take effect:

The bill, until January 1, 2025, would establish 55 gallons per capita dailyas the standard for indoor residential water use, beginning January 1, 2025, would establish the greater of 52.5 gallons per capita daily or a standard recommended by the department and the board as the standard for indoor residential water use, and beginning January 1, 2030, would establish the greater of 50 gallons per capita daily or a standard recommended by the department and the board as the standard for indoor residential water use. The bill would impose civil liability for a violation of an order or regulation issued pursuant to these provisions, as specified.

Read full story here…




Facebook To Judge Which News Sites Are ‘Credible’ Or Not

The problem with censorship in general is not traditional left-right conflict of ideology; rather, it is the Technocrat mindset that a) every problem can be solved by algorithm, b) they are the only data jockeys who know how to do it and c) they are the ‘chosen’ and therefore must act. The culture at Big Tech sees their Utopian ideology as the only valid possibility and rejects all else. ⁃ TN Editor

The war on “fake news” is about to go to an entirely new level. According to media reports, Facebook has been seeking to hire “news credibility specialists” that will be tasked with “evaluating” which news publishers are “credible” and which are not. If the goal was just to simply filter out the handful of websites that purposely publish fake news stories, that would be fine. But as we have seen so many times in recent years, these types of programs inevitably discriminate against conservative viewpoints. Facebook is highly liberal, and they will be hiring from a California talent pool that is also highly liberal. And liberals invariably consider liberal viewpoints to be more “credible” than conservative viewpoints. Facebook built an empire by giving everyone a voice, and it is simply not fair for them to try to exclude conservative viewpoints now just because they do not like them.

Hopefully we can get some answers from Facebook about this. On their official job site, the advertisement for these positions indicated that these “news credibility specialists” would be involved in the creation of “a list of credible news organizations”

Per a report in Business Insider, as of Thursday, Facebook had two contract positions for “news credibility specialists” open on its job site. The jobs are based out of Menlo Park, California, where the site is headquartered, and one of them lists fluent Spanish as a requirement:

“We’re seeking individuals with a passion for journalism, who believe in Facebook’s mission of making the world more connected,” one of the two listings reads. It continues: “As a member of the team, you’ll be tasked with developing a deep expertise in Facebook’s News Credibility Program. You’ll be conducting investigations against predefined policies.”

Facebook would ask the specialists to help create a list of credible news organizations. That list could be used for various features on the site, from the newsfeed to its advertising system.

So what criteria will be used to determine which news organizations are “credible” and which are not?

In the end, it seems almost inevitable that liberal news organizations will receive more favorable treatment.

The job announcement on Facebook’s official job site is now down, but similar job postings also showed up on LinkedIn

Similarly worded job postings also appear on LinkedIn, posted by a staffing company on behalf of an unnamed Menlo Park company. (The LinkedIn URLs include the phrase “world’s largest social network,” which is kind of a tipoff it’s Facebook.) Those posts mention that “you’ll be tasked with developing a deep expertise in News Credibility Program and evaluating news publishers for policy compliance.”

And of course Facebook is not the first major social media company to do something like this.

In a recent article, I noted that YouTube made a decision to hire “10,000 new moderators” to “flag content” late last year.

The elite have decided that it is way too dangerous to allow “we the people” to control the narratives, because whoever controls the narratives has an enormous amount of power. This is a point that Caitlin Johnstone made extremely well in one of her recent articles…

The good news about all this is that we know exactly where our shackles are. Our shackles are made of narrative, and the oligarchs’ ability to control it. A populist movement to disrupt establishment narratives and wake people up to what’s going on is all it will take to break our rulers’ ability to control the way the citizens of the world think and vote. From there we can make our own narratives and create a world which benefits us all and not just a few ruling elites. Right now there is a mad rush by those same elites to scale back our ability to network and share information via new media, so one of the most revolutionary things we can do at this time is prevent them from doing so and outpace them in that race.

It isn’t the west versus Russia. It isn’t left versus right. At this time the real conflict in our society is a few ruling elites and their cronies versus humanity’s natural impulse to act in a way that is beneficial to humanity. All we need to do is help that impulse flourish, get out of our oligarchy-imposed brain boxes, and build a new world.

This is why the establishment is in such a rush to take control of the Internet.

They know that our future will be determined on the Internet, because that is “the marketplace” of today.

Read full story here…




Pamela Geller: Who Is Behind The Internet Thought Police?

Pamela Geller asks the question, to what degree is the Internet thought police influenced by Islamic agenda? The answer may be disturbing but TN has consistently noted that there is a distinct link between Technocracy and radical Islam. In this case, Islamic operatives in positions of power are directing the media to be friendly toward Islam but harshly critical of everything else. ⁃ TN Editor

An article, “What the Red Pill Means for Radicals,” published on June 7 in the ironically named publication Fair Observer might have passed unnoticed as yet another uninformed, biased and ideologically motivated attack on all who ever get labeled “extremists.” The piece is so riddled with non-sequiturs and wild generalizations that it seems almost cruel to rip it to shreds.

But the author is Bharath Ganesh. A little online research reveals that Ganesh is currently working at the Oxford Internet Institute — at the esteemed Oxford University — on a research project funded by the European Union to devise ways to disrupt the “far right” online. The project in question is under the banner of the Vox-Pol Network of Excellence, which “is designed to comprehensively research, analyse, debate, and critique issues surrounding violent online political extremism (VOPE).”

This research group is only interested in violent extremism – according to their website. “The qualifier ‘violent’ is therefore employed here to describe VOX-Pol’s interest, which is in those that employ or advocate physical violence against other individuals and groups to forward their political objectives. The extremist nature of the politics in which VOX-Pol is interested is thus not decided upon by project participants, but by the decision of those involved in particular types of politics to advocate or employ violence to advance their goals.”

Note the claims – utterly disingenuous, as it turns out – that the labeling of certain people or groups as “violent extremists” is entirely due to their own behavior; in other words, don’t worry, folks, it’s all scientifically objective.

This research is being used to advise companies who host online platforms, such as Facebook, as well as governments, on how to stamp out online radicalization – using strategies such as working out ways of preventing people from seeing material posted that is deemed unsuitable in some way, or offering them alternative “nice” things to look at. This is a seriously important issue. The people and political powers behind such initiatives are manipulating behavior online and literally controlling how people think and get information. They are the appointed guardians of the online hoi polloi.

But who guards the guardians?

For if Dr. Ganesh is in charge, we have some very worrying questions to ask. One could start from the observation that the article is certainly not an academic piece, and gives no concrete evidence for any of the sweeping claims it makes about the so-called “alt-right” and the “manosphere”; nor does it, as any academic should do, attempt to test ideas and consider alternative explanations. (Oddly enough, this makes it rather like the groups it claims to criticize.)

And the label of “violent extremist” turns out to be used very generously. Ganesh makes wild leaps and inferences. He talks of Darren Osborne, the perpetrator of the vehicular attack on Finsbury Park Mosque. This was a heinous crime, and should rightly be condemned. But why did Osborne do this, according to Ganesh? The attack “was executed after he had become indignant after watching a BBC broadcast on child sexual exploitation and turned to social media to make sense of it. He found a narrative from British counter-jihad groups closely aligned with the alt-right, such as Britain First and the founder of the English Defence League Tommy Robinson.” The British counter-jihad movement is thus swept into the same group of violent extremists as Osborne, because Ganesh “knows” they encouraged him.

The BBC broadcast was the drama based on real life, Three Girls, which showed real-life events of three of the (very many) victims of the Rochdale Muslim rape gangs. Ganesh somehow knows precisely what went on in Osborne’s mind. Rather than thinking that it was outrage at the behavior of the gangs of Muslim men of Pakistani background who abused the girls portrayed in Three Girls that caused Osborne to lose his mind and commit his terrible crime, Ganesh blames Obsorne’s act on the likes of Tommy Robinson. Yet Robinson explicitly fights AGAINST political violence. What “narrative from British counter-jihad groups” can one find which suggests driving vehicles into innocent Muslims standing outside a mosque? I’m sure if there was any, Ganesh would, as a researcher at an elite institution, be able to find it. But there is none offered – only surmise and Ganesh’s mindreading techniques. I suppose if you’re paid to fight online extremism, you’d better find it, or you’re out of a job and short of academic publication.

We have also the ridiculous idea that Tommy Robinson is “alt-right.” He, in fact, describes himself as a centrist – he’s said he agrees with Labour on some things, the Tories on other things, and he left the EDL precisely because he didn’t like the infiltration by the far right. He shows no hint of racism or of white supremacism.

The writer of this shoddy article is working at one of the most elite universities in the world, on research funded by the European Union, and giving advice based on this sloppy thinking to those who are in charge of manipulating and policing the communications and information we have online.

We have to ask. Is it simply a coincidence that Tommy Robinson is now in prison, and that a “researcher” who presents such a misleading account of Robinson is currently actively engaged in consultation with Oxford University and the European Union in advising how to disrupt Robinson’s activities, reinforcing the lies and misrepresentations about him to those in power?

There’s more. Bharath Ganesh’s profile tells us this: “During his Ph.D., Bharath was also a Senior Researcher at Tell MAMA, a national project dedicated to mapping and monitoring anti-Muslim hate in the United Kingdom. He has given evidence in the Houses of Parliament on governance, extremism, gender, and hate crime and authored a number of reports in this area.”

Is it simply a coincidence that this “researcher,” prior to coming to Oxford University, worked for Tell Mama, that factory for the production of bogus claims about Islamophobia?

Who runs the Internet runs the world. Is this a partnership between Europe’s governments, the Internet giants, and Islamic influence?

 




Facebook, Amazon, Google And Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC

Big Tech, steeped in Technocracy, finds a working relationship with the ultra-left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) based on the principle, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Big Tech’s core value system is based on Scientism, a utopian religion that views itself as the sole custodian of truth; thus, all other values must be eradicated. ⁃ TN Editor

Four of the world’s biggest tech platforms have working partnerships with a left-wing nonprofit that has a track record of inaccuracies and routinely labels conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter all work with or consult the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in policing their platforms for “hate speech” or “hate groups,” a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

The SPLC is on a list of “external experts and organizations” that Facebook works with “to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja told TheDCNF in an interview.

Facebook consults the outside organizations when developing changes to hate speech policies, Budhraja said, noting that Facebook representatives will typically hold between one and three meetings with the groups.

Citing privacy concerns, the Facebook spokeswoman declined to name all the outside groups working with Facebook, but confirmed the SPLC’s participation.

Budhraja emphasized that Facebook’s definition of “hate group” is distinct from the SPLC’s definition and said that Facebook consults with groups across the political spectrum.

The SPLC accused Facebook in a May 8 article of not doing enough to censor “anti-Muslim hate” on the platform. That article did not disclose the SPLC’s working partnership with Facebook.

“We have our own process and our processes are different and I think that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja said.

“That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process,” she said.

Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, TheDCNF found.

While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” an Amazon spokeswoman told TheDCNF.

Amazon grants the SPLC that power “because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever,” said the spokeswoman, who could not say whether Amazon considers the SPLC to be unbiased.

The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon. Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon.

Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.

Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom — which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the Supreme Court — are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, TheDCNF found in May. (RELATED: Christian Baker Prevails At Supreme Court In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Dispute)

One month later, the anti-Semitic groups — but not the Alliance Defending Freedom — are still able to participate in the program.

Twitter lists the SPLC as a “safety partner” working with Twitter to combat “hateful conduct and harassment.”

The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which “provides input on our safety products, policies, and programs,” according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.

A Twitter spokeswoman declined to comment on the SPLC specifically, but said the company is “in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations].”

Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program, The Daily Caller reported in February, citing a source with knowledge of the agreement. Following that report, the SPLC confirmed they’re policing hate speech on YouTube.

The SPLC and other third-party groups in the “Trusted Flagger” program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.

Read full story here…




Facebook Shareholders Slam Zuckerberg As The ‘Dictator”

The head of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg is actually a Technocrat, but Technocrats are essentially dictators, as in China. Inwardly, Technocrats are motivated and guided by their Utopian goals of transforming the world for its own good, even if it requires forcing compliance. ⁃ TN Editor

Facebook is run like a “dictatorship,” according to some of the company’s shareholders, who slammed CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the annual shareholder meeting in Menlo Park, California, Thursday.

In the last few months Zuckerberg has faced criticism from users and regulators, as well as lawmakers in the Senate, the House and the European Parliament. The U.N. has even accused his company of facilitating genocide in Myanmar.

This week it was the turn of Facebook’s own investors, who laid into Zuckerberg for his poor leadership and the myriad failings at the world’s biggest social network.

The omens were bad from the start: a plane flew overhead bearing the sign: “YOU BROKE DEMOCRACY,” courtesy of the anti-monopoly activist group Freedom From Facebook, who want the network broken up.

David Kling, Facebook’s deputy general counsel, chaired the meeting. Three minutes in, while explaining that shareholders would not be able to speak until the voting was over, Kling was interrupted: “Shareholder democracy is already lacking at Facebook,” the shareholder shouted. She was told to sit down repeatedly by Kling and was eventually ejected from the meeting.

It didn’t get much better for Facebook’s leadership.

Christine Jantz from NorthStar Asset Management was first up, proposing to change the voting structure so that one share equals one vote, an issue she said was more important now given the “highly concerning issues the company is currently facing.”

“If privacy is a human right — as stated by Microsoft CEO — then we condemn that Facebook’s poor stewardship of customer data is tantamount to a human rights violation,” Jantz said.

“The shareholder revolt is yet another sign that Facebook can’t get ahead of the curve in terms of trying to address the wider issues that its business faces,” Andy Barr, founder of 10 Yetis, a digital media agency, told VICE News.

“At a time where global businesses are fighting to try and demonstrate transparency and democracy, Facebook, seemingly driven by Zuckerberg himself, is trying to shy away from any kind of accountability, especially with rules like his shares carrying 10 times more weight than normal shareholders,” Barr said.

Read full story here…




Hate: Google Listed ‘Nazism’ As The Ideology Of California Republican Party

Don’t blame it on Wikipedia, either.

The Google culture absolutely detests republicans and conservative thought. Its own employees are shunned, redlined and even fired for the conservative beliefs.

When Vice News discovered that searching for “California Republican Party” on Google displayed an infobox listing its number one ideology as ‘Nazism’, even before Conservatism, Market Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism, the Internet caught wind and was immediately enraged.

Google yanked the entire Ideology text area faster than the blink of an eye, but the picture was already posted all over the Internet.

Incredulously, Google blamed the incident on Wikipedia as ‘vandalism’:

We regret that vandalism on Wikipedia briefly appeared on our search results. This was not the the result of a manual change by Google. We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that happened here.

While there is no proof that a Google employee edited the Wikipedia page for the California Republican Party, how is it that the global leader of AI could not spot such a glaring misstatement?

Here’s how: I have stated several times that AI has been demonstrated to take on the same biases as its creators. If Google’s AI missed this, it was because of the bias inherited from its programmers.

The level of vitriol in Silicon Valley against conservatives is hard to fathom. Recently, my friend Michael Shaw erected an electronic billboard on the northbound 101 at the 880 interchange in San Jose. This was an expression of free speech and the sign rotated several images. Within hours of showing a pro-Trump message, the sign was vandalized with eggs, causing extensive damage to the sign, as seen by the white dots in the sign.

A new electronic billboard on northbound 101 at the 880 interchange in San Jose, Calif., shows signs of vandalism, Monday, April 9, 2018. The sign has been displaying political ads including one last week that supported the reelection of President Trump. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

 

 

If you are thinking, ‘What’s a few eggs?’, just consider that this sign is on one of the busiest freeways in California. The vandals risked life and limb to stop and launch these calcified missiles.

Of course, there is no proof that any Google employees participated in destroying this sign, but the point of culture is made. The Technocrats in Silicon Valley hate conservative thought.




Tommy Robinson: Free Speech Is Critically Wounded In London

Free Speech has been dealt a lethal blow in England, where an activist reporter was railroaded into prison after covering a trial while broadcasting to social media.  His hour-long livestream to Facebook was watched over 250,000 time within hours of posting. The judge was enraged that Robinson encouraged people to share: “I regard it as a serious aggravating feature that he was encouraging others to share it and it had been shared widely. That is the nature of the contempt.” ⁃ TN Editor

The rule of law is fragile, and relies on the self-restraint of the majority. In a just society, the majority obey the law because they believe it represents universal values – moral absolutes. They obey the law not for fear of punishment, but for fear of the self-contempt that comes from doing wrong.

As children, we are told that the law is objective, fair and moral. As we grow up, though, it becomes increasingly impossible to avoid the feeling that the actual law has little to do with the Platonic stories we were told as children. We begin to suspect that the law may in fact – or at least at times – be a coercive mechanism designed to protect the powerful, appease the aggressive, and bully the vulnerable.

The arrest of Tommy Robinson is a hammer-blow to the fragile base of people’s respect for British law. The reality that he could be grabbed off the street and thrown into a dangerous jail – in a matter of hours – is deeply shocking.

Tommy was under a suspended sentence for filming on courthouse property in the past. On May 25, 2018,  while live-streaming his thoughts about the sentencing of alleged Muslim child rapists, Tommy very consciously stayed away from the court steps, constantly used the word “alleged,” and checked with the police to ensure that he was not breaking the law.

Tommy yelled questions at the alleged criminals on their way into court – so what? How many times have you watched reporters shouting questions at people going in and out of courtrooms? You can find pictures of reporters pointing cameras and microphones at Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter, who were accused of similar crimes against children.

Tommy Robinson was arrested for “breaching the peace,” which is a civil proceeding that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Was imminent violence about to erupt from his reporting? How can Tommy Robinson have been “breaching the peace” while wandering around in the rain on a largely empty street sharing his thoughts on criminal proceedings? There were several police officers present during his broadcast, why did they allow him to break the law for so long?

Was Tommy wrong to broadcast the names of the alleged criminals? The mainstream media, including the state broadcaster, the BBC, had already named them. Why was he punished, but not them?

These are all questions that demand answers.

Even if everything done by the police or the court was perfectly legitimate and reasonable, the problem is that many people in England believe that Tommy Robinson is being unjustly persecuted by his government. The fact that he was arrested so shortly after his successful Day for Freedom event, where he gathered thousands of people in support of free speech, strikes many as a little bit more than a coincidence.

Is the law being applied fairly? Tommy Robinson has received countless death threats over the years, and has reported many of them. Did the police leap into action to track down and prosecute anyone sending those threats?

If the British government truly believes that incarcerating Tommy Robinson is legitimate, then they should call a press conference, and answer as many questions as people have, explaining their actions in detail.

As we all know, there has been no press conference. Instead of transparency, the government has imposed a publication ban – not just on the trial of the alleged child rapists, but on the arrest and incarceration of Tommy Robinson. Not only are reporters unable to ask questions, they are forbidden from even reporting the bare facts about Tommy Robinson’s incarceration.

Why? British law strains – perhaps too hard – to prevent publication of information that might influence a jury, but Tommy’s incarceration was on the order of a judge. He will not get a jury trial for 13 months imprisonment. Since there is no jury to influence, why ban reports on his arrest and punishment?

Do these actions strike you as the actions of a government with nothing to hide?

Free societies can only function with a general respect for the rule of law. If the application of the law appears selective, unjust, or political, people begin to believe that the law no longer represents universal moral values. If so, what is their relationship to unjust laws? Should all laws be blindly obeyed, independent of conscience or reason? The moral progress of mankind has always manifested as resistance to injustice. Those who ran the Underground Railroad that helped escaped slaves get from America to Canada were criminals according to the law of their day. We now think of them as heroes defying injustice, because the law was morally wrong.

The inescapable perception that various ethnic and religious groups are accorded different treatment under the Western law is one of the most dangerous outcomes of the cult of diversity.

Diversity of thought, opinion, arguments and culture can be beneficial – diversity of treatment under the law fragments societies.

The blind mantra that “diversity is a strength” is an attempt to ignore the most fundamental challenge of multiculturalism, which is: if diversity is a value, what is our relationship to belief systems which do not value diversity?

If tolerance of homosexuality is a virtue, what is our relationship to belief systems that are viciously hostile to homosexuality? If equality of opportunity for women is a virtue, what about cultures and religions which oppose such equality?

And if freedom of speech is a value, what is our relationship to those who violently oppose freedom of speech?

Diversity is a value only if moral values remain constant. We need freedom of speech in part because robust debate in a free arena of ideas is our best chance of approaching the truth.

You need a team with diverse skills to build a house, but everything must rest on a strong foundation. Diversity is only a strength if it rests on universal moral values.

Is Tommy Robinson being treated fairly? If gangs of white men had spent decades raping and torturing little  Muslim girls, and a justly outraged Muslim reporter was covering the legal proceedings, would he be arrested?

We all know the answer to that question. And we all know why.

Diversity of opinion is the path to truth – diversity of legal systems is the path to ruin.

If the arrest and incarceration of Tommy Robinson is just, then the government must throw open the doors and invite cross-examination from sceptics. Honestly explain what happened, and why.

Explain why elderly white men accused of pedophilia are allowed to be photographed and questioned by reporters on court steps, while Pakistani Muslims are not.

Explain why a police force that took three decades to start dealing with Muslim rape gangs was able to arrest and incarcerate a journalist within a few scant hours.

Explain why a man can be arrested for breaching the peace when no violence has taken place – or appears about to take place.

To the British government: explain your actions, or open Tommy Robinson’s cell and let him walk free.

Read full story here…