STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Social Networks Show They Work for Government, not Private Sector
By Daily Bell Staff - June 03, 2016

Free Speech Isn’t Facebook’s Job  … My instinct as a First Amendment teacher is to be outraged at Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft for knuckling under to European Commission pressure to ban hate speech on their platforms. But after sleeping on it, I think it’s fine.    Here’s why: These social media giants are private actors, not the state. –Bloomberg

We disagree with Bloomberg. Facebook is not a private sector actor. If it were up to us, Facebook would be shut down.

It was funded by the CIA which has surely participated in its success around the world.

It’s not really a company. It’s a facility of American  imperialism.

By carefully tracking who knows whom, Facebook can generate groups of related individuals. These groups can be useful to the FBI, CIA and other intelligence outfits.

And Facebook does plenty of other kinds of spying. That’s the reason it’s always getting caught collecting customer data.

That’s the reason it encourages liberal – statist – reporting on its sites.

It’s primarily a vast spying operation.

That’s not how this Bloomberg editorial sees it. The Bloomberg editorial takes these big companies at face value. But these companies would not exist without state power and authoritarian judicial decisions.

They are puffed up by “corporation personhood,” intellectual property rights and monopoly fiat money.

Without these three “legs of the stool” there would be no multinationals. The problems of corporate bigness would not exist.

Marry the CIA and its vast panoply of violent influence peddling to state judicial power and here is the unholy spawn: social networks.

How can anyone maintain they are in any way products of the “marketplace.”

More:

[Social media giants]  can’t be trusted to protect free speech, nor is it their obligation, whether in Europe or the U.S. Those of us who care about preserving free speech need to keep that in mind, while maintaining other venues for free speech that aren’t controlled by private companies.

The editorial goes on to mention “The Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online,” recently posted by the European Commission.

It is a voluntary code but one that the article explains has placed pressure on big Internet vendors like Facebook and Google.

In fact, this entire hate-speech campaign in Europe is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. Juveniles convicted of committing “hate speech crimes” will undergo a rehabilitation program that supposedly will make them more tolerant.

It’s a horrible evolution of censorship in every sense of the word. And the code has received a lot of attention because the big Internet vendors will have to use their own judgment about what constitutes “hate speech.”

The editorial tells us that “independent nongovernmental organizations” shall partner with the big firms to figure out what to remove.

But the companies themselves will have the final say.

The editorial doesn’t find this objectionable because private companies manage customer activities all the time.

The editorial also tells us that big companies have presented themselves as “neutral platforms,” responsible to shareholders not customers.

The editorial’s “upshot” is that “we need to keep an eye on free speech by assuring that there are vehicles for self-expression that aren’t completely controlled by private actors.”

But a company like Facebook is not responsible to its shareholders. If CEO Mark Zuckerberg were to stop collecting information for the CIA, he would be shoved rudely out the door or worse.

When it comes to US security interests, Facebook, Google and all the rest are primarily civilian arms of US intelligence agencies. Their “shareholders” take a back seat.

These companies will NOT exercise their own judgment when it comes to determining what is and is not hate speech.

The European Union will explain that in detail through third parties. And the EU’s concerns will be negotiated with American intel agencies and supervising London bankers.

The same hate speech censorship occurring in Europe is coming to America as well.

To point fingers at Facebook, Google, etc. is to misapprehend the powerful influences that run the West and the world.

Conclusion: If you want to make a difference when it comes to “freedom of speech” you are better off investigating and confronting the City of London than Google. The City, of course, is far more powerful. Much easier to pretend that large social networks are of real importance and part of the “private sector.” They are not.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Praetor

    This brings to mind, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shell never hurt me. Exactly, DB 1984 and New-speak.

    The technocratic elites have thought this through with precision and a lot of dedication. What is hate speak anyway, saying I hate gays, I hate blacks, I hate Jews, Mexicans, whites, Muslims or is it China hates the Japanese, Russia hate the Ukrainians. What is it.

    This is not about what is said, its about changing the way people think, and having the god like ability of omniscient, unlimited knowledge of all humans activities. What better way to have unlimited knowledge of every human on earths activities and how they think. Social Media is an arm of the Propaganda Ministry.

    Just think what Goebbels could have done, if he had a Social Media, and people were stupid enough to tell everything they do and think. And the most un-thinkable where their at and where they will be at any given moment. Unbelievable!!!

    • Earn nest

      We do indeed tell them all about us. But the platforms are still an avenue of limited free speech which we use and appreciate at the moment.

  • r2bzjudge

    “Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft”

    Isn’t two or more a conspiracy?

    “But after sleeping on it, I think it’s fine.”

    The author said ” knuckling under”. How is it that the author is fine with companies knuckling under to a government demand of censorship?

    The author needs re-education as to what the First Amendment is.

    • stevor

      don’t forget Google!

  • Cynical4U

    I’m curious ~ How do you really know that this was funded by the CIA?
    Not that I would be surprised ~ Just would like to know your resource and
    that you’re not just making assumptions. Thx

    • stevor
      • Great article. Believe he is wrong about DARPA, which was invented as a networking agency between universities, defense corporations and the Pentagon. But then “two Steves in a garage” invented the modern PC and the great hook-up began. The modern Internet was a mistake. In fact, they didn’t even start to do serious damage control until the late 1990s from what we can tell. It took them so long because the old men at the very top likely had little idea (fully) of what was coming.

    • The CIA has close connections to both Facebook and Google. Your favorite search engine can confirm this.

    • Dave

      Wake up from your slumber dude. Geeezzz.

  • jrrrr

    The world wide web of welfare state state politicians, all pursuing wealth and power, must polarize their populations into vicious hostility, with the stereotypical demonization of some people as a universal threat to harmonious prosperity. This is the political process and its hostile consequences necessary to claim that political favoritism for a few funded by the destructive exploitation of the rest, is a hostility resolving equalization process.

    Without this politically created hate and violence aimed at each other, helped by tax funded indoctrination centers trading professorial integrity for paychecks, people would notice that most of the “equality” taxation stays in the hands of political slime, as does the total control over their lives, property and incomes necessary to compel the equalization scam onto populations and their economic interaction.

    And then the poor politicians would be left standing helplessly by as their enlightened populations unite in solidarity over this deceitfully outrageous injustice, march on their capitols and burn them all to the ground. (Figuratively speaking, of course. Wouldn’t want to sic any brown shirts on DB. )

  • Is such ‘government’ the people who are in office – the people who dictate their decisions or the Idea-beliefs that they operate from whether they know it or not?

    The idea of mind-control begins ‘at home’ as the usurpation of true conscious presence by a masking mind coercively maintained. That this process of fragmentation reflects a world of pain and conflict is not associated with our personal subscription to the idea of mind-control. Rather we play the innocent victim to Them and in fact use the hated as an enemy by which to hold such a masking ‘identity’ together. For it has no real foundation or cause outside such a hatred – and so the hate and associated fears and guilts are ‘redistributed ‘ and redefined as reality – but displaced or mitigated in substitutions of disguise and diversionary deceit.
    The role of relative innocence uses victimhood to justify attack (hate). Addiction to an identity in hate hides itself in social ‘acceptability’ – such as promoting tolerance while monopolizing and directing hate.

  • Ernie Hopkins

    Again Daily Bell tags it in spades. I will say Twitter has become a political piece for the moment till it gets crushed. Some of the same on FB as well. That Internet Reformation thing at work.

  • If any area of R&D is likely to yield weaponisable or marketisable advantage – then funding will be aligned for the purpose of directing or subverting the nursery so as to abort any threat or usurp and control any asset of seeming opposition or divergence. The flipside that drives it runs the belief that if you don’t get there first your ‘enemies’ or rivals will. Survival instinct harnessed to insane or hateful appreciations of existence operates a ‘Luciferian agenda’.
    The oppositional agenda has a built-in sense of enmity for it hates its own Life while directing hate anywhere but to the receptive acceptance of hate as love’s denial. That is the last thing that such hate would allow – better to die and take all else with us than be undone of ‘will and power’ to the Feeling of Existence Itself!

  • Isefree

    “We have recently launched a Daily Bell Facebook page, so “like” us there to get the latest news right in your newsfeed.”

    Why would you want a Facebook page if you believe Facebook is just a tool of US intelligence agencies?

    • Tools can have unintended consequence – and what was intended to harm others will inevitably turn to hurt the wielder.
      “As ye sow, so shall ye reap” seems a threat to the fearful who would deceive – but is simply a reminder of the nature of Mind to the thoughts we accept true for us within it.

      Is anything ‘just’ one intended meaning? – Or is it serving agenda beyond the current scope of perception?
      Is this ‘devil’ of hates and deceits really ‘controlling’ human destiny – or is it a role within a larger revelation unfolding? If we give power to the bad guy – we can seem less guilty than they and also somewhat righteous in opposing them. That’s enough for most; a bit of relief from pain and a boost of power within a sense of powerlessness. Lather rinse and repeat…

    • We are an editorial facility, not a priesthood.

      • Isefree

        No need to be snarky. Straightforward answer was what I was looking for.

        • Seemed like you were being sarcastic.

          • Isefree

            No sarcasm meant. I wanted to understand your reasons. If as you say Facebook is “primarily a vast spying operation” what is the benefit to you that offsets being spied on?

          • tgmolitor

            Another unanswered question, Isefree.

          • Isefree

            I have no account with Facebook so I have no direct experience with; only what I read about.

          • tgmolitor

            She’s asking for a straightforward answer to her question.

    • tgmolitor

      Very good question, Isefree.

  • Bruce C.

    I don’t understand the Bloomberg article.

    Why does it matter if Facebook is “a private actor, not the state” regarding the freedom of speech?

    If the author of the article is basing his/her statement on the US Constitution, which is what I infer, then “freedom of speech” (and the press) is the law of the land that subsumes the state/government too. It doesn’t mean that the private sector can restrict speech but only the government can’t. That makes no sense. That would mean that individual citizens (e.g., protestors) could lawfully act to restrict the speech of others as long as they had no official government ties. That’s completely wrong. Besides that, it is the state itself, in this case the European Commission, who are restricting the free speech of Facebook, etc. which is clearly wrong even in the narrow sense expressed by the author.

    The DB’s point that Facebook isn’t such a private entity is valid too, but not relevant in determining whether or not the EU authorities can rightfully restrict its free speech. Furthermore, if the Facebook corporation has “personhood” then the state can’t restrict its free speech any more than a human individual.

  • william beeby

    Yes I take your point DB . You are doing a great job , keep it up please.
    I am guilty of using FB for keeping contact with family and friends and I do post articles that I think are important on FB and on Twitter. I have a son and his family who now live near Boston Mass. and I can keep in touch with them at no expense financially which is marvellous but what price am I really paying to use their free contact service ? It`s a world of spooks , smoke and mirrors and George Orwell`s 1984 ( which must have seemed futuristic to him then ) might well be most appropriate in the year 2024 when ” their ” ( the 0.01% elite ) surveillance will probably be complete. That is if we are all still here which seems increasingly unlikely.

  • John

    “We disagree with Bloomberg. Facebook is not a private sector actor. If it were up to us, Facebook would be shut down.

    It was funded by the CIA which has surely participated in its success around the world.”

    And America Brought Over Hundreds of the NAZI SS Scientists & Intelligence Officers After WW2 & FORMED The CIA & NASA.

    Werner von Braun Head of the NAZI SS Rocket Program BECAME Head of the American NASA Rocket Program

    • Modern intelligence agencies were private before they were public. They were likely formed and funded by the great banking families – at least several hundred years ago and probably longer.

loading