Tag Archives: Internet Censorship

‘Dark day for internet freedom’: EU lawmakers approve controversial copyright reform

rt.com
26 March 2019
Unknown

A protester in front of the European Parliament as MEPs debate on modifications to EU copyright reforms in Strasbourg. © Reuters

The European Parliament has voted to adopt the highly controversial Article 13 provision which would govern the production and distribution of content online under the auspices of increasing copyright protections.

Tuesday’s move will update the EU’s 20-year-old copyright rules and will govern audiovisual content, much to the dismay of many social media users who have already begun outpouring their grief online.

However the parliament said in a statement that sharing memes and gifs has been protected “even more than it was before” and they will continue to be available and shareable on online platforms.

MEPs passed the legislation by 348 votes to 274 Tuesday. Opponents had hoped for last-minute amendments to be made but their efforts were in vain.View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Julia Reda@Senficon

Dark day for internet freedom: The @Europarl_EN has rubber-stamped copyright reform including #Article13 and #Article11. MEPs refused to even consider amendments. The results of the final vote: 348 in favor, 274 against #SaveYourInternet12.6K12:53 AM – Mar 27, 201910.8K people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacy

Marietje Schaake@MarietjeSchaake

😢

European Parliament adopted the text and we did not have a chance to vote on articles 11&13 again. 4 votes difference on allowing for the amendments to be voted. New controversial copyright law underway for Europe Marietje Schaake@MarietjeSchaakeReady to roll #copyright vote 13312:54 AM – Mar 27, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy156 people are talking about this

Mark Di Stefano @MarkDiStef

Just in: Memes are now illegalAdam Fleming@adamflemingThe European Parliament has passed the EU’s new Copyright Directive.46112:53 AM – Mar 27, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy359 people are talking about this

Julia Reda, a German MEP with the Pirate Party, described it as a “dark day for internet freedom.”

Article 13 or ‘The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market’ makes all platforms legally responsible for the content hosted and shared on their platforms.

The process of updating the bloc’s copyright laws began in the European Commission two years ago, ostensibly to protect Europe’s publishers, broadcasters and artists and guarantee fair compensation from big tech companies.

EU member states now have two years to pass their own laws putting Article 13 into effect.

What is Article 13? Controversial EU copyright law faces final vote

The law will require anyone sharing copyrighted content to obtain permission from rights owners, even if the content is just an animated GIF on Twitter. To protect their platforms from legal trouble, sites such as Facebook and Wikipedia will now be forced to implement “upload filters” to ensure that user-generated content doesn’t violate copyright.

Expensive to implement, vulnerable to bugs, and prone to inadvertently censoring lawful content, such filters have been slammed by critics as an existential threat to free expression on the internet.

Tens of thousands marched in protest across Germany ahead of the vote, decrying what they viewed as severe online censorship.

Tech giant Google said that while the directive is “improved” it will still lead to legal uncertainty and will damage Europe’s creative and digital economies.

Critics have argued that the only way for Article 13 to be effectively enforced would be through the use of upload filters which automatically check content to see if it’s copyrighted or not, at least in theory. However, the exact mechanics of such a system have yet to be fully debated and the potential for abuse is immediately clear.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Breitbart
20 August 2018
Allum Bokhari

The purge of the right on social media was once a slow trickle, with high-profile bans happening only occasionally, and then subsiding. With just three months until the midterm elections, the Masters of the Universe in Silicon Valley have turned online censorship into a cascade.

Earlier this month, Alex Jones was blacklisted on virtually every major social media service, including Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Facebook, and even Pinterest and Linkedin. Following pressure from CNN and Media Matters, Twitter eventually followed suit with a week-long suspension.

A few days after the mass-purge of Jones’ accounts, Twitter permanently banned libertarian commentator Gavin McInnes, and the official accounts of  his grassroots organization the Proud Boys, on bogus charges of “supporting violence.”

A few days later, Patreon, which has been ramping up its censorship of right-wingers (usually based on unsupported accusations of violence-promotion similar to those used by Twitter), kicked off Islam critic Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch. It later emerged that Mastercard had pressured Patreon into making the call.

Then, last night, Twitter went on another mass-purge of right-wingers, with multiple conservative personalities reporting that their follower count had dropped by hundreds overnight. Among those purged was the account of Vey, a graphics designer who previously produced artwork for Breitbart News. He provided Breitbart with a screenshot of progressive activists targeting his account for mass-reporting prior to his ban.

Big tech CEOs like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey resolutely maintain that they do not discriminate on the basis of political views. In an election year, it would be suicidal to claim otherwise. But the mountain of evidence contradicting them renders their well-rehearsed media talking points almost comical.

The list of the conservatives, right-wingers and other critics of progressivism who have been kicked off at least one major online service is huge. Tommy Robinson (banned by Twitter), Gavin McInnes (banned by Twitter), Lauren Southern (banned by Patreon, Stripe), Britanny Pettibone (banned by Patreon), Proud Boys USA (banned by Twitter), Sargon of Akkad (banned by Twitter), Roger Stone (banned by Twitter), Milo Yiannopolous (banned by Twitter), Hunter Avallone (banned by Twitter), Prager University (censored by YouTube), congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng (campaign ads banned by Facebook and Twitter), Pamela Geller (repeatedly kicked off Facebook), Alex Jones (banned by almost every social media platform).

These individuals all had hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of followers on their social media accounts prior to being banned. Their social media platforms served as organizing hubs for petitions, fundraisers, rallies, and other political activities of the grassroots right. The loss of their social media accounts will have a major impact on the ability of conservatives and right-wingers to organize its online supporters for the U.S. midterm elections and beyond.

The left, meanwhile, is virtually unrestricted in its ability to amplify its voice on social media. On the same day that it purged hundreds of accounts that followed prominent conservatives on social media, it verified Sarah Jeong, the newly-minted New York Times editorial board member who rose to infamy for using Twitter to engage in racist diatribes against white people.

Jeong described whites as “groveling goblins” who “mark up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” and boasted of feeling “joy” when being “cruel to old white men.” Not only did Twitter decline to ban her for hate speech, they didn’t even ask her to delete the offending tweets. And then they verified her — after her tweets became the subject of international attention.

This power imbalance on the most influential technology platforms on the internet is sure to have an impact on the midterm elections. One side of politics is allowed to mobilize online without being impeded, while the other is not.

For over a year, Democrats and the mainstream media have been caterwauling about Russian social media interference in the 2016 election. Yet, as even the Washington Post admitted, Russia spent a minuscule sum on Facebook ads in 2016. Voters observing the ads, according to research conducted by an academic who is no fan of Trump, were unlikely to have been affected. If Russia’s goal was to sow panic in American politics then they’ve succeeded, largely thanks to the Democrats. But direct influence on voters? Not so much.

The real attempt to bias the outcome of an election hasn’t come from beyond America’s borders, but from the San Francisco Bay Area. Shamed by Democrats and the Media for “letting Trump win” in 2016, social media companies have responded by utterly crippling the ability of the president’s supporters to organize on the web.

Free-market libertarians say “build your own platforms” — but replacing even if replacing Google, Twitter, and Facebook were possible (and that’s unlikely), it’s a project that would take many years, possibly over a decade, to complete. How many election cycles could Silicon Valley influence by then?

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, who masterminded the president’s digital operations in 2020, understands the problem. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner last week, Parscale says “big tech is becoming big brother.”

“What we are seeing in Big Tech is the inherent totalitarian impulse of the Left come into full focus,” writes Parscale. “The Left is losing at the ballot box, and there are some signs it is starting to lose the culture war too. The free and open Internet has been indispensable in spreading conservative ideas, and it was indispensable in getting Donald Trump elected president — and now the Left wishes to destroy it.”

If they want to save themselves, the rest of the Republican party must realize that the tech giants that have come to dominate so much of our lives are not the same as Christian bakers, and are crying out for regulation. Now is not the time for free-market platitudes. Democracy itself is at risk.

Before long, if you don’t agree with official climate change propaganda, you will be banned from YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter

Natural News
14 August 2018
Tracey Watson

(Natural News) Back in 2006, The Guardian published an article entitled, “A climate of censorship,” in which Brendan O’Neill warned that government officials in the U.K. were comparing climate change deniers to terrorists and arguing that both should be denied media air time. He warned that many such “deniers” were, in fact, scientists at respected British universities, and that no government official had the right to compare them to dangerous terrorists. He noted that there was an increasing push towards the censorship of free speech, including the right of such scientists and others to insist that man-made global warming does not exist.

O’Neill noted:

Increasingly, environmentalists are calling for the silencing of climate-change skeptics or deniers. The deniers’ words are so dangerous, we are told, that they must be censored for the good of humanity. Some have even claimed that in denying climate change, these individuals are committing a “crime against humanity” and should be put on trial.

I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change. But I am a free speech advocate. And this rising tide of intolerance and censoriousness in the debate about climate change should concern anyone who believes in free and open and rational debate.

A dozen years later, it is highly unlikely that The Guardian would even publish an opinion piece like O’Neill’s anymore. It has become commercially “dangerous” to suggest in any way, shape or form that man-made global warming might not be true – though these days you are more likely to encounter the term “climate change” than “global warming,” as temperatures have inconveniently refused to match up to the predicted highs of the so-called “experts.” In short, it would be financial suicide for any mainstream broadcaster or publication to give airtime to the evidence presented by anyone who denies global warming; their advertising dollars would simply disappear, and they would be mocked and decried as scientifically ignorant. (Related: Global warming debunked – NASA report verifies carbon dioxide cools atmosphere.)

YouTube censors any who dare to spread “climate misinformation”

BuzzFeed recently reported that the social media giant YouTube is now “fact-checking” any videos which dare to question climate change. The company has also taken the step of adding the following disclaimer to such videos:

Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.

Amazingly, this line is a direct quotation from a Wikipedia entry, as if Wikipedia can be referenced as an accurate source of scientific information!

Since March, YouTube has also been adding Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica entries next to “conspiracy theory” video clips, such as those claiming that the moon landing and Oklahoma City bombing never took place. By doing the same for climate change videos, they are directly censoring scientific information – in many cases presented by knowledgeable experts – and lumping it together in the public mind with completely unbelievable and historically unsound clips. (Related: The “global warming hoax – 30 years of failed predictions that never came true.)

There are respected scientists who insist global warming does not exist

What YouTube is doing would be acceptable if all the world’s most respected scientists were in agreement about the climate change theory. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as was recently illustrated when the highly respected, retired German climatologist Dr. Werner Kirstein addressed the annual Anti-Censorship Conference.

In reference to global warming, Kirstein warned: “[T]he science has been seriously compromised by politics, power-hungry bureaucrats and politically motivated organizations, such as the WMO, IPCC and The World Bank. It all comes down to funding. It’s sad, but that’s how it works.” He added, “Climate science is totally politicized.”

So much for Wikipedia and its “Multiple lines of scientific evidence.”

Of course, YouTube’s actions mimic those of all the other social media platforms, all of which have been actively censoring the information they have access to. Pretty soon, censorship won’t be enough, and anyone who admits to skepticism regarding the mainstream global warming narrative will likely be denied access to these platforms.

Discover the uncensored real truth about climate change at Real.video.

Sources include:

Breaking News! Alex Jones Channel on You Tube is now censored as well as on other social network platforms

Infowars
6 August 2018

Update: In a sign of solidarity for the First Amendment, the Drudge Report has linked directly to the Alex Jones Show so Alex can directly respond to the ban and what it really means for the Trump presidency

YouTube has outright banned The Alex Jones Channel not long after news broke that Google is building a censored search engine for China.

Interestingly, the ban – which comes on the same day that Facebook and others banned Infowars for unspecified instances of “hate speech” – comes right before the 2018 mid-term elections in which the establishment is trying to stifle President Trump’s agenda.

It’s almost as if “Skynet” – an oft-used term to describe Big Tech and its “control freak nature” – is admitting defeat and is making last-ditch moves to stop competition to establishment-approved viewpoints.

In all honesty, social media has been “shadow banning” Infowars ever since the election of President Trump.

“Infowars is widely credited with having played a key role in electing Donald Trump. By banning Infowars, big tech is engaging in election meddling just three months before crucial mid-terms,” wrote Paul Joseph Watson. “With the Infowars ban, Apple, Facebook , Spotify & YouTube (Google) have all now ascribed themselves the power to remove people & outlets from their platforms based on their political opinions.”

“This power will be abused time and time again to meddle in elections.”

While claiming it’s banning Alex Jones over “hate speech,” Google has no problem building a censored search engine for China which scrubs results about human rights and religion.

“Google is planning to launch a censored version of its search engine in China that will blacklist websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest,” according to The Intercept. “The project – code-named Dragonfly – has been underway since spring of last year, and accelerated following a December 2017 meeting between Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai and a top Chinese government official, according to internal Google documents and people familiar with the plans.”

 

My Conclusion I’m so speechless and I’m in disbelief because You Tube have done this; censored and de-platform the Alex Jones Channel. Since late 2010 that’s when I began listening to Alex Jones and that got Eco Liberty created on WordPress at the beginning of 2014 because Alex Jones encourage us to have our platform. Because he believe that if we have enough awaken people we might defeat the evil of the New World Order and allow humanity to process to the next level.
Alex Jones knew this censorship was coming sooner or later and it just happen on this day.
What got to say to Alex Jones. “Alex Jones you a great hard working Man who believes in individual liberty and limited. You knew America is trouble and getting the word out is what going to get people awaken one day. Since late 2010 Infowars had inspired and empower me; and I don’t always agree on somethings what you said. But it doesn’t mean your Channel should be censored. When you channel get censored on You Tube and banned on Facebook you only going to come back louder; your rant will be louder than a roaring Lion. Alex Jones you did what you can; you gave what you got; to defeat the evil to defeat the New World Order.”

For me I might not be post any more video because You tube censorship. It’s now time that we need other platform that allow us to speak minds and doesn’t support Political Correctness and any other Left wing ideology.

If you want to visit Infowars just click on link below.
https://www.infowars.com/

The Purge: YouTube Mass-Censors Conservatives, New Right, Classical Liberals

Breitbart
1 March 2018
Allum Bokhari

YouTube is purging right-wing and independent commentators in the wake of the Parkland High shooting while admitting that it is mistakenly banning conservatives.

Independent journalist Mike Cernovich reported earlier today that a video he uploaded of left-wing Antifa activists chanting death threats had been taken down by YouTube. The video shows Antifa shouting violent threats at attendees of Cernovich’s Night for Freedom event in Washington DC, which took place on Saturday. Cernovich commented to Breitbart News on YouTube’s removal, saying, “YouTube is censoring honest, unedited reporting about ANTIFA’s actions. This can mean only one thing — they endorse far left wing violence.”

Google, which owns YouTube, has also banned political YouTube star and classical liberal Carl Benjamin, better known by his online pseudonym “Sargon of Akkad.”

Although his videos are still available to view, he has been locked out of his Google account, including YouTube, and is unable to upload new videos. Benjamin was also permanently banned from Twitter last year — Facebook is now the only major social media platform that he can use to get his message out.

https://www.facebook.com/v2.8/plugins/post.php?app_id=1243316582352556&channel=http%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2FNh1oH0K63yz.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df990115d57c21e%26domain%3Dwww.breitbart.com%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.breitbart.com%252Ffdb92e2ad44eb2%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=640&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fsargonofakkad100%2Fphotos%2Fa.1671883446160631.1073741828.1669596836389292%2F2058651427483829%2F%3Ftype%3D3&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&width=620

In a comment to Breitbart News, Benjamin said the ban, which mirrored that of Canadian academic Jordan Peterson last August, was the beginning of a “platform-wide purge.”

“As James Damore’s lawsuit against Google has shown, the entire company is riddled with a far-left ideological orthodoxy that has taken hold to a radical degree,” said Benjamin.

“Google’s active suppression of individualist ideas within its own ranks has caused classical liberal and conservative commentators to be considered as far-right as Nazis, and are being treated with the same kind of prejudice and ruthlessness.”

Earlier this week, we reported on the censorship of Ashton Whitty, a conservative vlogger and Berkeley student. After Whitty uploaded a video criticizing CNN over their coverage of the Parkland shootings, YouTube took down her video and issued her channel with a “strike.” If a channel receives three strikes within three months, it can be permanently banned from the platform. Although the initial video was restored and the strike removed, the same thing happened to another of Whitty’s videos within a few hours.

The YouTube purge has also hit InfoWars, a popular alternative media channel run by radio host Alex Jones, who interviewed Donald Trump while he was still a candidate. InfoWars’ YouTube channel, which has more than 2 million subscribers, has now been blocked for two weeks over accusations that it posted “conspiracy theories” about Parkland. If it receives one more strike within three months, the channel will be permanently banned.

In a comment to Breitbart News, InfoWars Editor-at-Large and YouTube star Paul Joseph Watson said Google’s unchecked power and influence over civil discourse required regulation.

“Google is a monopoly, and its anti-free speech policies are beginning to erode the sanctity of civil discourse,” said Watson. “We need some kind of constitutional amendment or mass movement, such as the one against SOPA, in order to re-assert the supremacy of free expression.”

“YouTube admitting they made a “mistake” in terminating some accounts and content does offer a glimmer of hope that there are some rational actors within the company.”

“However, this speaks to the wider phenomenon of how society has become so coddled and infantilized, that stridently challenging the views of public figures is now being treated as ‘bullying’ and ‘harassment.’”

Watson warned that the “fury” caused by mass censorship on social media platforms would only increase the same “hyper-partisan tensions” that the big tech companies claim to oppose.

A YouTube spokeswoman recently admitted that some videos were being removed in error, attributing it to teething problems caused by their recent hiring of 10,000 new human moderators.

“Newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals” admitted the spokeswoman. “We’ll reinstate any videos that were removed in error.”

At a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Ted Cruz called out YouTube’s alleged ideological bias, highlighting Prager University’s lawsuit against the company over censorship of conservatives. Cruz told a YouTube representative that if the platform did not remain politically neutral, they could lose legal immunity for user content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Without this protection, social media companies would be legally liable for all content posted on their platforms – an existential threat to their business model.

Update — InfoWars contributor Jerome Corsi reports that his YouTube account has been terminated.

Highest EU Court Considers Criminalizing Website Hyperlinks

Source:Infowars
Date: 5 February 2016
Author: Adan Salazar

Social media, online journalism, blogs, web searches, comment sections could all be affected…

The highest court in the European Union this week heard arguments which could impact the ability to link to content on the Internet.

Presiding over a case threatening the nature of the web as we know it, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on Wednesday debated whether website hyperlinks to content which infringes copyright laws should be permitted. Continue reading Highest EU Court Considers Criminalizing Website Hyperlinks

TPP revealed: Pact details ignite debate over privacy, internet freedom, whistleblowers

Source:RT
Date: 6 November 2015

With the release of the full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sharpening of arguments on both sides outline a debate about privacy, corporatism, internet freedom and intellectual property, and even the plight of whistleblowers.

The world got its first look at the international agreement between 12 Pacific Rim countries on Thursday, exactly one month after it was finalized on October 5. Given that the secret negotiations hammering out the pact had been ongoing since 2008, with details hard to come by, skeptics and critics had been expressing suspicions as to TPP’s true intentions and ultimate impact over the past couple years. Now they can finally stop speculating and have a look at the fine print. Continue reading TPP revealed: Pact details ignite debate over privacy, internet freedom, whistleblowers

TPP to criminalize investigative journalism while destroying online media not run by globalist corporations

Source: Natural News
Date: October 08, 2015
Author: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) Are Natural News, its growing network of news and information sites and all other alternative media in danger of becoming extinct? This thought would become more than just a remote possibility if newly revealed data about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement the Bush and Obama administrations have spent years negotiating are revealed to be accurate. Continue reading TPP to criminalize investigative journalism while destroying online media not run by globalist corporations