Censoring Facebook

Censoring Facebook

My last post on internet censorship was as a response to Ghion Journal's article on the sinister alliance with government. For me government is a 1%-satrapy so I just described it as 1% control, but whilst of course the revolving door between the 1% and government functions is a 1%-satrapy it is not transparent one-way traffic.

In Rainer's article there was a clip I missed, and now I have watched it in detail. It is between some of my trusted internet people - Real News Network, and Matt Taibbi about facebook, and it is good listening:-

LISTEN

There is something we forget the implications of, and that is Facebook is a business. Its model is something like:-

"Get as many people as possible on facebook, encourage them to write as often as possible, build up a potential consumer profile, sell these profiles, and then sell microtargeted advertising space (eg sponsored ads aimed at you)".

Most facebook users tacitly fit in with this model because they write often, write about personal stuff, and don't realise they are being setup as customers for people buying the advertising space. Facebook users inadvertently work with this model because they want friends, likes, and all the tricks that build up to this advertising.

For me what was most significant in what Matt said is that Facebook were under threat from the government - work with us or we will regulate you, regulate the word most feared by the 1%, BigTech or otherwise. It is illegal for government to personally censure, and that is where the Atlantic Council come in - work with our quasi government or we will regulate. Facebook is an advertising business only interested in profits so they capitulated. According to Matt Facebook has capitulated all over the world, and are controlled by powerful governments wherever. Be censored or regulate.

So this brings me to the loudmouth, Alex Jones, as a human being perhaps "God should have censored him", but even though there are some awful and untrue things that he says, he has the right to say them. If there were no liars there wouldn't be any governments. To describe what Facebook has done with Alex Jones is not censorship - or at least not government censorship with its 1984 connotations. Facebook is a business, and they are refusing his business. They have set out who they will allow to be users, and this is their rulebook - community standards; it is easy to see how Alex breaks their rules. Is barring someone from a pub censorship?

But getting rid of Alex Jones from Facebook is not the issue, what the issue is:-

Now that the door is open who will also go?

And that brings in this actor, the neoconservative think tank of the Atlantic Council, far more sinister than Facebook's community standards.

Here is a fluff piece where breastfeeding women were irate about Facebook as according to Facebook's algorithm at the time breastfeeding was porn, then there is the iconic napalmed naked Vietnamese girl censored - see Matt's talk. In a world where we are subject to the machine of AI and algorithm they are not atypical responses. As the fluff piece says, a can of worms was opened by their actions, and the Facebook response is to accept indirect government censorship by an Atlantic Council "a powerful neoconservative think tank whose board includes ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials. The Atlantic Council is also funded by large corporations and banks, Gulf monarchies, Western governments, and NATO" [here].

So where does that leave us as truth-seekers with censorship? Government censorship, exemplified by the Atlantic Council, has only limited interest in our welfare, Facebook's community standards are much better for that. Government only has the interest of their masters. And people exposing the 1%-satrapy, the revolving door of 1% and government are at risk of censure and more.

It concerns me although it doesn't surprise me that the Deep State (what I understand as the Deep State is described here) is now more involved with the internet. I have often suggested that the internet's recent lurch to the right (as society has lurched to the right) was as a consequence of Occupy where the 1% were exposed; the Deep State will strive to end that exposure.

In a way this might be a good thing. Occupy's rallying call was effectively get off your arse and do something. Adbusters called for Occupy to happen on the streets. Perhaps liberals hope that the internet will somehow offer them a "peaceful revolution" whilst they can still keep their houses and eat their avocado toast. With increasing Deep State censorship that has far less chance of happening.

As activists we can still use the internet, but the Deep State will control webspace even more. Now providers will close a site at any request, maybe the Deep State will be more proactive seeking some form of monitoring by providers? But activism belongs to face-to-face contact, when you can see whether someone is telling the truth. Why should anyone in the movement ever believe a business can be beneficial to the movement's interests?

This is speculation mixed with an old man's desire, let's see.