THE CENSORSHIP MASTER PLAN DECODED

Emergency Report: The Censorship Master Plan Decoded

An emergency report to Congress and to the president concerning Big Tech, the Democrats and the Deep State’s plan to kill the First Amendment in America

Mike Adams | Infowars.com – JULY 16, 2018

This key report, prepared for lawmakers and for President Trump, serves as a roadmap on how tech giants covertly silence online speech – and how America can fight back against these monopolists working in sync with corporate media and left-leaning “fact checking” sites.

To date, no one has assembled a comprehensive compendium of the aggressive censorship strategies and mechanisms now being deployed against users being targeted by the tech giants. This document aims to serve as a primer “blueprint” to explain both the motivations behind the extreme censorship as well as the technical/mechanical means through which such censorship is carried out.

This document should be required reading for any lawmaker or government official interested in protecting the freedom of speech that has served as a critical pillar in our society for over two centuries.

Click here for a fullscreen, printable version.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/383918384/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-sgMdQEFVkzCYFb3H9roI&show_recommendations=false

For a brief overview of what the report contains, please watch the following:


TWITTER OFFICIALLY ADMITS TO ‘SHADOWBANNING’ USERS IN ALL BUT NAME

Screen Shot 2018-05-15 at 2.46.41 PM

Given itself authority to restrict content that doesn’t even violate its policies

By Allum Kokhari

Twitter has acknowledged that it is working to artificially limit the reach of “troll-like” accounts on the platform — “shadowbanning” users in all but name, a practice that the company has repeatedly denied.

In an announcement earlier today, Twitter said they were taking steps to limit “behaviors that distort and detract from the public conversation” by downranking content that exhibits such behaviors from search results and “public conversations.”

In other words, if your behavior is considered “troll-like” by Twitter, it will be harder for other users to find your posts on the platform. The practice of limiting the visibility of content without formally suspending the content owner, notifying them, or deleting the content in question the definition of shadowbanning.

Although Twitter employees have been caught on camera admitting that shadowbanning takes place on the platform, the company continues to publicly deny that it engages in the practice — they have even made such denials in Senate hearings.

Twitter has made little effort to be transparent about the kind of signals it looks for when seeking to identify accounts that, in their words, “distort the conversation.” One of their employees was caught on camera admitting that accounts that post too much about “God, guns, and America” are likely to be classified as “bots,” but there is no acknowledgment of that in Twitter’s announcement.

Twitter only provided a few examples of the kind of signals they look for.

There are many new signals we’re taking in, most of which are not visible externally. Just a few examples include if an account has not confirmed their email address, if the same person signs up for multiple accounts simultaneously, accounts that repeatedly Tweet and mention accounts that don’t follow them, or behavior that might indicate a coordinated attack. We’re also looking at how accounts are connected to those that violate our rules and how they interact with each other.

Buried at the bottom of the announcement post is another admission: Twitter has given itself the authority to restrict content that doesn’t even violate its policies.

These signals will now be considered in how we organize and present content in communal areas like conversation and search. Because this content doesn’t violate our policies, it will remain on Twitter, and will be available if you click on “Show more replies” or choose to see everything in your search setting.

Although considerable political attention has been focused on Facebook over its alleged political censorship, Twitter has a far worse track record. Conservatives and critics of progressivism are still routinely kicked off the platform, often for no other reason that presenting facts and political arguments.

CNN’S ACOSTA COMPLAINS TRUMP’S VERBAL ATTACKS ON MEDIA WILL LEAD TO “A JOURNALIST GETTING HURT”

“The problem is that people around the country don’t know it’s an act.”

Steve Watson | Infowars.com – APRIL 25, 2018

Fake news reporter Jim Acosta complained Tuesday that President Trump’s consistent slamming of the media and ridiculing networks such as CNN as ‘fake news’ will lead to a reporter being attacked by Trump supporters.

Speaking with Variety along with reporters April Ryan and Ashley Parker of The Washington Post, Acosta suggested that Trump’s rhetoric will lead people to commit acts of violence against journalists.

“The problem is that people around the country don’t know it’s an act.” Acosta said, implying that Trump is disingenuous in his tirades against the media.

“They take what he says very seriously,” Acosta continued.

“They take attacks from Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders and what they do to us on a daily basis very seriously,” he added.

Acosta further suggested that Trump supporters are mentally unhinged.

“They don’t have all their faculties in some cases. Their elevator may not hit all floors,” he exclaimed.

“My concern is that a journalist is going to be hurt one of these days. Somebody’s going to get hurt,” Acosta added.

Related: Associated Press Suggests Criticizing Journalists is “Hate Speech”

“And at that point, the White House, the President of the United States, they’re going to have take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves whether or not they played a role in this, whether they created this toxic environment that resulted in a journalist getting hurt.” Acosta urged

The reporter has clashed with Trump a number of times, including most notably when Trump said “You are fake news,” to his face during a press briefing last year, and told Acosta that “Your organization is terrible,” referring to CNN.

Acosta has become increasingly hostile in his line of questioning, and has claimed that he is not being given the freedom to ask questions.

 Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 5.58.45 PM

During the Variety interview, April Ryan chimed in to claim that she doesn’t “travel as much as I used to” for fear of being attacked by supporters of Trump, who she says is guilty of “throwing gasoline on the fire”.

Elsewhere during the interview, April Ryan stated that “fake news” isn’t “a cute little statement” but rather “has tentacles that it’s reaching overseas” that “can really destabilize democracies.”

She also charged that Trump has violated his Oath of Office by not supporting the media, claiming that reporters like herself and Acosta are “pillars of this nation”.

“He’s really being a hypocrite when he’s calling us “fake news” and saying — and it’s undermining us and we are a part of the pillars of this nation, the Founding Fathers. They didn’t know that there was going to be Twitter. They didn’t know there was going to be Ashley, they didn’t know there was going to be a Jim, they definitely didn’t know there was going to be an April asking questions of Presidents, but when we stand on what they laid for us and we — and the First Amendment is still strong — freedom of press and the President is going totally against that.” Ryan stated.

The part she left out was that the First Amendment also gives Americans the right to criticize the press.

MSNBC Russiagater Joy Reid says ‘hackers’ made her blog look homophobic

MSNBC’s JOY REID interacts with the students surrounding the stage at Washington University, site of the second presidential debate between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. © Brian Cahn / Global Look Press

MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid claims her old blog has been hacked and updated to include anti-gay content to make her look bad.

The weekend host apologized last year for a number of homophobic blog posts she wrote from 2007 to 2009 about Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who was married to a woman at the time. Among other homophobic comments, Reid called Crist“Miss Charlie” and suggested he was “ogling male waiters” on his honeymoon.

But this week the story became more sinister. The Twitter user who initially discovered Reid’s homophobic postings has now unearthed some articles which also appear to have come from her old blog, and sound far worse.

Capture

Jamie Maz found the old articles through the Wayback Machine — an online archive that stores old content even after it has been deleted — of Reid’s blog as it had been.

Mediaite has reported some of the highlights, including comments about how “most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing” and about how finding gay sex “gross” is just “intrinsic” to being straight.

The author of the posts also suggested that anti-gay attitudes were rooted in “concerns” that adult gay men “tend to be attracted to very young, post-pubescent types.”

There has been no apology from Reid this time, however. Instead, she claims her now-deleted blog was somehow hacked through the Wayback Machine, supposedly by people who want to ruin her stellar reputation.

Anumber of experts consulted by the Intercept website said that, although it is not impossible, they were unaware of any instances of the Wayback Machine being hacked and altered before — and that to do something like that would require quite a sophisticated effort.

Capture

Capture

“That’s an awful lot of work for a hacker to do, and for what end? To make a homophobic person appear MORE homophobic?” cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr said.

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has chastised the liberal media for failing to cover the story, given the important issues at hand – including LGBT equality, the security of online information and the dangers posed by hackers.

“One would think that [the liberal media] would be quite interested in this story and the critical questions it raises,” he wrote. Instead, he added, liberal outlets have “steadfastly ignored the story almost completely.”

Capture

One of the few liberal journalists who has commented on the story defended Reid by suggesting that “Russians” hacked her old blog to make her look bad.

Come on, you knew it was going to be the Russians.

 

Twitter bots are bad…unless they’re pushing the ‘right’ narrative?

See the source image

In what should be a source of embarrassment to the British government and the journalists who parroted it, a number of prominent Twitter users have recently been accused of being automated Russian bots rather than real humans.

Two of these government-identified “bots” are the accounts @Ian56789 and @Partisangirl — and they are in fact definitely not bots, but real live people. In the case of @Partisangirl, whose real name is Maram Susli, any three-year old could have figured out that she is a real person simply by viewing the multiple videos and interviews she has posted online in recent years.

But Guardian journalist Heather Stewart didn’t do that. Instead she unquestioningly reported the ‘news’ that Susli is a bot.

Capture

Challenged on Twitter, all Stewart could say in her defense was that it was the government’s analysis, not her own. Given that the government’s ‘analysis’ is very clearly completely wrong, one would think that Stewart might want to correct her story to reflect that fact, but she has not bothered to do so.

READ MORE: ‘I’ve seen the censorship’: Syrian blogger tells RT how she was labeled a ‘Russian bot’ (VIDEO)

The other user accused of being a bot by the British government, @Ian56789, whose real name is Ian Shilling, has given an interview to Sky News, which also makes abundantly clear that he is a human, not a Russian bot. Stewart has not updated her story to include that information either — and both Susli and Shilling are still identified only as “bots” in her story.

Attacks on @Partisangirl are not new. For years, she has fought off allegations from prominent Western analysts that she is not real, or that if she is, she has had plastic surgery. In 2014, Susli tried to prove she had not had cosmetic surgery by posting a photograph of herself as a child. Responding to the photo of the very young Susli, senior editor at the Daily Beast and CNN analyst Michael Weiss said it looked like her parents raised her as a “streetwalker”.

Capture

In 2013, Phillip Smyth, who is a ‘Soref Fellow’ at the Washington Institute —   a D.C.-based think tank which focuses on foreign policy analysis — attacked Susli for her looks, twice accusing her of having plastic surgery. In one tweet, Smyth said the “plastic surgery guy” who “fixed her up” didn’t do a good jo b. Ironically, some time after Smyth posted an article about how men who abuse women online are “literally losers”.

Capture

This wouldn’t be the first time Western news outlets and analysts have falsely accused Twitter users of being bots in the employ of the Russian government, either. Last year, the crowdfunded website Byline published “analysis” suggesting that the account @didgery77332nd, which used the nickname “Smoo” was a “foreign-based troll pushing Russian messaging.”

That Russian “troll” turned out to be a security guard from Glasgow. “Smoo has been my nickname since I was six years old. It’s not difficult to track me down. People might not agree with my opinions, but that doesn’t make me a Russian troll,” he told The Scotsman newspaper.

Another Twitter user in the firing line for her “pro-Russia” views is @sahouraxo which uses the name Sarah Abdallah. It is true that little is known about Abdallah outside of her very popular Twitter account, but that does not necessarily mean she is a bot. Although without more information to go on, it’s impossible to say she is who she says she is, either. The BBC has questioned Abdallah’s authenticity and highlighted her as one of the most influential Twitter accounts on the Syrian war.

Former Middle East editor of the Guardian Brian Whitaker has recently attempted to expose Abdallah and her possible “connections” to Hezbollah. But perhaps he is just trying to make up for past mistakes.

In 2011, Whitaker was quick to promote the ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’ blog.

 Capture

The blog was ostensibly run by a Syrian girl named Amina Arraf who documented her struggles as a gay person in Syria. At one point, ‘Amina’ was even kidnaped by Syrian security forces, worrying gay rights activists everywhere. Whitaker and many others were tricked into believing Amina was a real person. In reality, it turned out that she was an entirely fakepersona and ‘her’ blog was run by a 40 year-old straight man from Edinburgh named Tom MacMaster.

When McMaster was found out, the Guardian wrote that the hoax “exposes the power and the unreliability of the internet” — and yet seven years later, the mainstream media spends more of its time attacking real bloggers than it does trying to expose the real “unreliability” of the internet.

For instance, mainstream outlets are happy to parrot blogger Eliot Higgins who publishes ‘analysis’ on chemical weapons attacks in Syria from the comfort of his home in England. Higgins produces “evidence” of war crimes from his couch and is held up as a hero by Western pundits and activists.

Similarly, activists from the pro-regime change White Helmets ‘rescue organization’ are always just around the corner when they need to film the aftermath of a chemical attack and lobby for regime change in front of Western audiences. The group, which is the subject of an Oscar-winning documentary and proclaims itself to be “neutral” and impartial, has been exposed by investigative journalists for its links to Jabhat al-Nusra — Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate.

Members of the White Helmets have been filmed assisting in public executions, helping militants discard the bodies of Syrian soldiers in dumpsters, posing while standing on top of piles of dead bodies and waving Jabhat al-Nusra’s flag while brandishing weapons.

But Susli, an Australia-based Syrian girl with a large Twitter following is the real threat?

Facebook says it tracks non-users but doesn’t ‘sell people’s data’

Capture

If you have logged out of your Facebook account – or have never even had one – the US social network giant is still keeping close tabs on you, tracking every virtual move, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

David Baser, the company’s product management director, admitted in a recent blog post that Facebook receives data about visitors to any websites that use the so-called “social plugins,” such as “Like” and “Share” buttons.

“When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if you’re logged out or don’t have a Facebook account,” Baser said in the blogpost on Monday. He rushed to emphasize, however, that this is how the modern internet works and that all companies, including Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn operate in a similar way, while Google has a popular analytics service. Besides, Amazon, Google and Twitter all offer plugin features and thus collect user information, he noted.

“These companies — and many others — also offer advertising services. In fact, most websites and apps send the same information to multiple companies each time you visit them.”

Facebook collects user and non-user internet protocol (IP) addresses, as well as information about the browser and the operating system they are using. The company also tracks the “identifiers that websites use to know if you’ve visited before,”commonly known as cookies.

“I want to be clear: We don’t sell people’s data,” Baser stressed. The company insists there are only “three main ways” in which Facebook uses the information it gets from other websites and apps: “providing our services to these sites or apps; improving safety and security on Facebook; and enhancing our own products and services.”

Privacy concerns have plagued Facebook after it acknowledged last month that information about millions of users was shared with consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Grilled by US lawmakers for almost five hours on Wednesday, Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook collects “data on people who are not signed up for Facebook,”adding that this is done “for security purposes” only.

“You’ve said everyone controls their data, but you’re collecting data on people that are not even Facebook users who have never signed a consent, a privacy agreement,” Zuckerberg’s questioner, Representative Ben Lujan, a New Mexico Democrat, hit back, notingthat the practice creates “shadow profiles.”

Zuckerberg maintained, however, that Facebook does not sell anyone’s data and that users can control who has access to whatever they share via “inline” settings. Facebook is not listening in on users, he noted, after Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Indiana) presented him with several personal anecdotes suggesting otherwise.

“Facebook doesn’t do this, and I’m not familiar with companies that do either,” Zuckerberg said“We’re not collecting any information verbally,” and “don’t have anything that’s trying to listen to what’s going on in the background.”

And yet, critics argue that Zuckerberg has not said enough about the extent of data gathering and its use. “It’s not clear what Facebook is doing with that information,” said Chris Calabrese, vice president for policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a Washington advocacy group.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

(THIS IS WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS AMERICA) – Former Supreme Court justice calls for REPEALING the 2nd amendment and liberals are loving it…

Capture

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (a ‘Republican’) penned an article this morning in the NY Times that encourages students to argue for repealing the 2nd amendment. And, as you might expect, it’s trending on Twitter near the top.

Here’s a brief excerpt from the article:

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Ironically Stevens is making the Right’s argument for us. He’s advocating exactly what groups on the Right have been saying for years that the Left really wants to do, no matter how many times they deny it: They want to take away our guns.

And as I said, liberals are loving it:

Capture

That’s an amazing tweet by this MSNBC host. Instead of deriding Stevens article against the need for ‘sensible discussion on guns’, she derides the ‘hysterics’ that will be made because of this article. Perhaps there will be hysterics because the article itself is hysterical!

Here’s a few more:

Capture

And the list goes on and on and on. And just fyi, the tweets I provided above are mainly from verified users who are in some cases part of media or political organizations.

As an aside, Stevens isn’t the first ‘Republican’ to push this nonsense. Bret Stephens, who used to work for the WSJ, has been pushing it as well in the NY Times:

Capture

Ugh.