Frankly, I feel like a fellow riding along a super highway in an old
buckboard with Old Nellie plodding along. We are, or at least we are
on the edge of a New Age...Mind Control. We've had our lives shaped
by Mass Propaganda, but now our choices are being made for us, just by
the way we are being herded.
I listened to Glenn Greenwald this morning, on Democracy Now, and as
he reported on the corruption in Brazil, I worry about his well being.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/10/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There was a whole episode of Unauthorized Disclosures about what Taibbi
wrote about because all of the independent, left leaning journalists are
feeling so threatened by what is happening. And there's a book on BARD, the
author of which was on Democrdacy Now a while back, called The Age of
Surveillance Capitalism, which describes in complicated detail, how Google
and Face Book, in particular, use data about us to sell to companies in
order to raise their profit margins. This is way more complicated than just
educating people.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 11:43 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Facebook Purges Are More Extensive Than You
Think
One thing for sure, if "we, the People" do not become involved in
determining the use of our Internet, then we will lose any hope of an open
communication outlet.
Of course the long range solution would be to "educate" our young to think
independently and to rely on themselves in determining what is fact and what
is fiction. Unfortunately, our social history is based upon Myths and Dogma
which lends itself to protecting our current political system.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/9/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Facebook Purges Are More Extensive Than You Think By Matt Taibbi,
Rolling Stone
09 June 19
Legitimate journalists are again being caught in the wash of internet
cleanups
If you turned on cable news this week, or read our own coverage in
Rolling Stone, you might have heard about YouTube's decision to
demonetize well-known conservative commentator Steven Crowder.
Crowder's offense involved calling Vox journalist Carlos Maza a "lispy
queer" and a "gay Vox sprite," leading, says Maza, to further harassment.
Much press commentary either cheered YouTube's move or called it belated.
Simultaneously, YouTube announced it would ban whole genres of videos
that fell under a hate/conspiracy label. From a Yahoo news summary:
"YouTube announced Wednesday it would ban videos promoting or
glorifying racism and discrimination as well as those denying
well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the Sandy Hook
elementary school shooting."
Yahoo quoted a YouTube announcement:
"Channels that repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies
will be suspended under our YouTube Partner Program."
Many greeted these stories with a shrug. If blue-state audiences even
know who Steven Crowder is, they think he's a jerk. And what could be
wrong with removing videos "denying well-documented violent events"?
At least two big things, as it turns out:
1. Platforms may not distinguish between reporting on hate speech, and
promoting it
A site called News2Share, run by journalist Ford Fischer, was removed
by YouTube this week under the new plan. Fischer received a notice:
"We found that a significant portion of your channel is not in line
with our YouTube Partner Program policies."
Fischer was one of the first people I spoke with for a Rolling Stone
story about Internet censorship published last year. His site acts as
a kind of clearing house for political footage of all kinds, including
demonstrations, marches, police misconduct and even flash mobs.
News2Share content spans the spectrum: the site currently contains
everything from a protest against the "Barr Coverup" of the Mueller
report, to pro-Assange protests in Britain, to a square-off between
gun militias and Antifa in Ohio.
It's valuable, original journalism, not aggregated clickbait.
"Almost the entire channel is video shot by me, or someone I hire,"
Fischer says.
Two videos apparently determined his fate under the new program. One
involved a pro-Israel activist and pro-Palestine activist arguing with
a Holocaust denier. The second was video of a speech given by white
nationalist Mike "Enoch" Peinovich.
Fischer says that "while unpleasant," the footage is "essential
research for history." It was even used as part of a PBS documentary
called "Charlottesville." Fischer was listed as an executive producer
in the film.
His work regularly appears in documentaries about subcultures of all
types, including the Frontline series "Documenting Hate" (you can see
him credited just above Getty Images at the end). Fischer's videos
have even appeared in Vox.
Now his work has been removed because the new policy does not
distinguish between showing a Holocaust denier or a white supremacist, and
being one.
Fischer describes the first video that got him in trouble, which
showed Antifa protesters arguing with a Holocaust denier: "While it's
true that the Holocaust denier says Holocaust-denier stuff," he says,
"this is raw vid documenting him being shut down."
Being demonetized on YouTube will deal a blow to Fischer's business.
He says YouTube ad revenue is "about half of my reliable, baseline
income," the rest coming from Patreon.
The Fischer case speaks to the inherent inanity of asking nameless,
faceless Silicon Valley overlords to weigh things like journalistic
intent. While there's an argument to be had about clamping down on the
purveyors of hate speech, what social or journalistic purpose is
served by concealing the existence of such people? And what possible
rationale could there be for allowing PBS or a commercial news network
to publish such videos, but not smaller shooters like Fischer?
As part of the new program, YouTube also pulled down a video published
by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In it, journalist Max Blumenthal
interviewed Holocaust denier David Irving. Blumenthal quickly said the
removal program had "gone beyond its stated aim" to "carpet-bombing
style censorship."
Blumenthal, like many of the people targeted in removal campaigns, is
a controversial figure who has been a consistent critic of U.S.
policy. He worried that such deletions are "just a test balloon for a
much wider campaign to suppress content by dissenting voices."
YouTube in his case seemed to acknowledge throwing the baby out with
bathwater.
"We know that this might be disappointing," it told the L.A. Times,
"but it's important to us that YouTube is a safe place for all."
YouTube has not responded to a request for comment about why Fischer
remains removed.
2. Internet platforms have neither the ability nor the resources to
sort out good reporting from bad - and may even perpetuate the latter
On May 28th, the New York Times ran a piece by Choe Sang-Hun that
talked about tourists in South Korea now being allowed to visit sites
of atrocities perpetuated under past dictatorial rule. In particular,
the piece mentioned tour groups being able to visit Jeju Island, where
30,000 people lost their lives. The Times wrote:
"These so-called 'dark tours' reflect a growing freedom under the
government of President Moon Jae-in to revisit the abuses perpetrated
when South Korea was governed under a dictatorship."
Investigative reporter Tim Shorrock, frequently published in The
Nation, found the article a mixed bag. Well-known among other things
as an Asia expert (he was raised in Japan and Korea) and an
iconoclastic exposer of intelligence community misbehavior, Shorrock
was bothered by the Times failing to mention the American role in Jeju
atrocities.
He posted a series of tweets that included photos from a museum at
Jeju, exhibits that included the headline, "U.S. Military Decides on
Tough Crackdown Operation." Shorrock wrote:
"This is what you see at the Jeju museum: photos and documentation of
US military officers overseeing the brutal crackdown, which took place
when South Korea was ruled by the US military government. Why no
mention of this, NYT?"
When Shorrock recently posted this same content on Facebook, it was
removed.
He had no idea why. He was told only that his posts "violated
community standards."
"I've asked for an appeal but have not heard back," Shorrock said
early Friday. "The post remains down and people on FB cannot link to
it when it's been reposted by me and others."
Shorrock is familiar and respected in the journalistic community. He
often takes tough stances on other reporters and has been critical of
outlets like MSNBC for a variety of reasons, usually having to do with
failing to question American foreign policy. His comments may be
uncomfortable to some, but they don't cross lines.
"What's astonishing to me is that my post is a critique of a
newspaper's coverage and uses no inflammatory or crude language," he
says.
On Friday afternoon, in response to a query by Rolling Stone, a
Facebook spokesperson said the issue had been corrected:
"We mistakenly removed a post for violating our spam policy but this
decision was appealed and we identified our error. The post has since
been restored to Facebook because it does not violate our Community
Standards."
Despite the fix, Facebook at press time still hadn't contacted
Shorrock (and the post still wasn't up). "So far, no response to me,"
he said. "They didn't act until press asked."
Is this algorithmic error or something else? The opacity of the
platforms'
review systems makes it impossible to know.
What happened to Shorrock highlights another problem: the biggest
deniers of "well-documented violent events" are often not small-time
conspiracy theorists, but governments, especially our own. Moreover,
some of the worst spreaders of conspiratorial news are not Twitter
geeks, but America's biggest media organizations. Moreover, some of
the worst spreaders of conspiratorial news are not little Twitter
geeks, but America's biggest media organizations.
In late May, Shorrock was one of just a few reporters who cried foul
when mainstream news outlets made what may have been a serious factual
error.
Beginning with Bloomberg on May 30th, and including the Daily Beast,
the Wall Street Journal and a long list of other major Western
outlets, it was reported that North Korean official Kim Hyok Chol -
who headlined a group of nuclear arms negotiators who met with Trump
officials last year - was "executed" as part of a "purge of
officials."
The story was based upon a single unnamed source in the South Korean
newspaper Chosun Ilbo.
A few days later, Chol was supposedly seen with Kim Jong Un and his
wife at an "amateur art performance." This was according to North Korean
media.
Multiple news outlets have since reported the development, including
Reuters, the Times, and the Washington Post. The Post headline read:
"The rumor of Kim Jong Un's purge: Why it matters even if it's wrong."
The Post led off by pointing the finger not at big news organizations,
but "social media," which it said "was ablaze last week with reports"
about the purges. The paper noted that a mistake would be unfortunate,
but, "even a false purge story doesn't justify ignoring the larger
trend in North Korea's authoritarian regime."
It's worth pointing out that nothing seems to have been proven one way
or another in this tale. Still, Shorrock's original comment on Twitter
- which criticized Bloomberg for running a report based on one unnamed
source in a paper he said has a "history of false stories" - seems
salient. What happens when mainstream platforms get things wrong en
masse? Do small-timers get yanked, while big organizations get to make
mistakes?
From WMD to inaccurate reports about drone strikes to things like the
attitude of South Koreans toward a peace process, the most troublingly
conspiratorial reporting often comes with an official imprimatur. A
frequent theme is overhype of villainous news about targets of
American "regime change" plans. Especially if people believe "fake
news" is being carefully rooted out, they will now be even more
susceptible to such official deceptions.
This speech-regulation issue - with its vast potential for misuse - is
bigger than Alex Jones or Stephen Crowder. This is Brave New World
territory, and people should realize that a few deletions here and
there could quickly snowball into something far worse, if it hasn't
already.
Email This Page
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
