Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

nan said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

 So, you assume you have the truth?  Based on what?

sbenois said:
Watch Jimmy Dore.  Believe the opposite.

nan said:
Here is a Sputnik interview with someone who works for RT who had her page taken down.  ...

 Mr. Sbenois shows his appalling ignorance.  Jimmy Dore is just the useful idiot.  Ms. Nan points to the real source.

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

nan said:
And speaking of "true identity," Facebook appears to be a private company acting as they wish, but they are in fact following the whims of the Atlantic Council and military industrial complex. 

 I thought these two quotes should be paired for easier reading.

nohero said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

 So, you assume you have the truth?  Based on what?

sbenois said:
Watch Jimmy Dore.  Believe the opposite.

nan said:
Here is a Sputnik interview with someone who works for RT who had her page taken down.  ...

 Mr. Sbenois shows his appalling ignorance.  Jimmy Dore is just the useful idiot.  Ms. Nan points to the real source.

Only in the MOL world of rampant neoMcCarthyism.

nohero said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

nan said:
And speaking of "true identity," Facebook appears to be a private company acting as they wish, but they are in fact following the whims of the Atlantic Council and military industrial complex. 

 I thought these two quotes should be paired for easier reading.

 Right, when you don't have an argument, you use out of context quotes to deliver personal attacks.  Typical.

Anyway,  as I demonstrated with an interview with a person who had their page taken down (did you bother to watch?), people are not being targeted as stated by dave23.  The Atlantic Council IS being used to weigh in on what does not fit the model of acceptable material and the Atlantic Council is not unbiased as they claim.  

New Facebook Alliance Endangers Access to News about Latin America

But how is Facebook qualified and equipped to make decisions on troublesome behavior that is political?

Needing help in that regard, Facebook decided to“outsource many of the most sensitive political decisions.” At hand was the Washington-based Atlantic Council, a think tank set up in 1961 ostensibly to promote U.S.-European cooperation.

According to Reuters, the Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab uses “its own software and other tools [and] sorts through social media postings for patterns.” The Atlantic Council relies on this facility to be able to extend advice of a political nature to Facebook. Likely as not, the Atlantic Council was involved in Facebook’s temporary removal of the accounts of TeleSUR English and Venezuelanalysis.com.

In any event, the process was greased with money.   A recent Facebook donation to the Atlantic Council’s “Lab” was big enough, reports Reuters, “to vault the company to the top of the Atlantic Council’s donor list, alongside the British government.”

According to one critic, Facebook is counting on ties with the Atlantic Council to solve its problems in dealing with disinformation. As “a leading geopolitical strategy think-tank seen as a de facto PR agency for the U.S. government and NATO military alliance,” the Council would theoretically be able to protect Facebook. Council leaders range from “retired military officers, former policymakers, [to] top figures from the U.S. National Security State and Western business elites.”

So, if there is any "poorly informed, paranoid consipiracy theories" going around on this thread they do not come from me.  Maybe that's you?

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

 So, you assume you have the truth?  Based on what?

sbenois said:
Watch Jimmy Dore.  Believe the opposite.

nan said:
Here is a Sputnik interview with someone who works for RT who had her page taken down.  ...

 Mr. Sbenois shows his appalling ignorance.  Jimmy Dore is just the useful idiot.  Ms. Nan points to the real source.

Only in the MOL world of rampant neoMcCarthyism.

Only in Nanworld.

nan said:

nohero said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

nan said:
And speaking of "true identity," Facebook appears to be a private company acting as they wish, but they are in fact following the whims of the Atlantic Council and military industrial complex. 

 I thought these two quotes should be paired for easier reading.

 Right, when you don't have an argument, you use out of context quotes to deliver personal attacks.  Typical.
Anyway,  as I demonstrated with an interview with a person who had their page taken down (did you bother to watch?), people are not being targeted as stated by dave23.  The Atlantic Council IS being used to weigh in on what does not fit the model of acceptable material and the Atlantic Council is not unbiased as they claim.  
New Facebook Alliance Endangers Access to News about Latin America

But how is Facebook qualified and equipped to make decisions on troublesome behavior that is political?

Needing help in that regard, Facebook decided to“outsource many of the most sensitive political decisions.” At hand was the Washington-based Atlantic Council, a think tank set up in 1961 ostensibly to promote U.S.-European cooperation.

According to Reuters, the Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab uses “its own software and other tools [and] sorts through social media postings for patterns.” The Atlantic Council relies on this facility to be able to extend advice of a political nature to Facebook. Likely as not, the Atlantic Council was involved in Facebook’s temporary removal of the accounts of TeleSUR English and Venezuelanalysis.com.

In any event, the process was greased with money.   A recent Facebook donation to the Atlantic Council’s “Lab” was big enough, reports Reuters, “to vault the company to the top of the Atlantic Council’s donor list, alongside the British government.”

According to one critic, Facebook is counting on ties with the Atlantic Council to solve its problems in dealing with disinformation. As “a leading geopolitical strategy think-tank seen as a de facto PR agency for the U.S. government and NATO military alliance,” the Council would theoretically be able to protect Facebook. Council leaders range from “retired military officers, former policymakers, [to] top figures from the U.S. National Security State and Western business elites.”

So, if there is any "poorly informed, paranoid consipiracy theories" going around on this thread they do not come from me.  Maybe that's you?

Excellent points, Nan. The Atlantic Council is funded primarily by Gulf states, defense contractors and governments. Not an institution that can be trusted to protect free speech.

Here's a good discussion on legitimate Facebook pages with dissenting viewpoints being removed without explanation:

Facebook Erases Hundreds of Alternative Media Pages in Mass Purge (1/2)

Social Media Purge Silences Alternative Media Outlets that had Millions of Likes (2/2)

Pandering to the right

The Weekly Standard is one of only five outlets that enjoys the power to “fact check” other people’s work on Facebook. The other four are the Associated Press and three outlets that specialize in fact-checking — Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes.com. No left-leaning outlet has this special ability to “fact check” other writers’ work.

https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-check-thinkprogress-6176df1d5749/

Why are you acting as if Facebook does anything to protect free speech? Firstly, we aren't the client, we're the product. Secondly, Facebook partners with countries everywhere to remove accounts and access, including the UK, Germany and Israel. Facebook has its uses, but in general it's a terrible way to communicate anything. Some posts are never seen, even by followers, the algorithms for paying to publicize something are Byzantine and often fruitless. It's literally the worst place to get your message out. 

Finally, Facebook access isn't a right, not should it be. Should Facebook collapse tomorrow, what have we actually lost?

ridski said:
Why are you acting as if Facebook does anything to protect free speech? Firstly, we aren't the client, we're the product. Secondly, Facebook partners with countries everywhere to remove accounts and access, including the UK, Germany and Israel. Facebook has its uses, but in general it's a terrible way to communicate anything. Some posts are never seen, even by followers, the algorithms for paying to publicize something are Byzantine and often fruitless. It's literally the worst place to get your message out. 
Finally, Facebook access isn't a right, not should it be. Should Facebook collapse tomorrow, what have we actually lost?

There is a general understanding that Facebook is a space (public square) for people to freely express themselves (free speech) that is echoed in Facebook's Community Standards:

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/introduction/

Voice: Our mission is all about embracing diverse views. We err on the side of allowing content, even when some find it objectionable, unless removing that content can prevent a specific harm. Moreover, at times we will allow content that might otherwise violate our standards if we feel that it is newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest. We do this only after weighing the public interest value of the content against the risk of real-world harm.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
Why are you acting as if Facebook does anything to protect free speech? Firstly, we aren't the client, we're the product. Secondly, Facebook partners with countries everywhere to remove accounts and access, including the UK, Germany and Israel. Facebook has its uses, but in general it's a terrible way to communicate anything. Some posts are never seen, even by followers, the algorithms for paying to publicize something are Byzantine and often fruitless. It's literally the worst place to get your message out. 
Finally, Facebook access isn't a right, not should it be. Should Facebook collapse tomorrow, what have we actually lost?

There is a general understanding that Facebook is a space (public square) for people to freely express themselves (free speech) that is echoed in Facebook's Community Standards:
https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/introduction/

Voice: Our mission is all about embracing diverse views. We err on the side of allowing content, even when some find it objectionable, unless removing that content can prevent a specific harm. Moreover, at times we will allow content that might otherwise violate our standards if we feel that it is newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest. We do this only after weighing the public interest value of the content against the risk of real-world harm.

 https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/facebook-deactivates-protest-pages-in-britain/?partner=rss&emc=rss

nan said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

 So, you assume you have the truth?  Based on what?

 The truth about Facebook's policies? Because I read them. 

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

 So, you assume you have the truth?  Based on what?

 The truth about Facebook's policies? Because I read them. 

 I totally believe you read Facebook policies, but I asked for the truth.  Policies are rarely as clear or followed as written for all.  

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

 So, you assume you have the truth?  Based on what?

 The truth about Facebook's policies? Because I read them. 

 I totally believe you read Facebook policies, but I asked for the truth.  Policies are rarely as clear or followed as written for all.  

 OK. Let me know when you find the true identities of those banned.

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

 So, you assume you have the truth?  Based on what?

 The truth about Facebook's policies? Because I read them. 

 I totally believe you read Facebook policies, but I asked for the truth.  Policies are rarely as clear or followed as written for all.  

 OK. Let me know when you find the true identities of those banned.

 I posted an interview with one.  

One.

dave23 said:
One.

 I also previously posted about Venezuela Analysis (I think that was the name) and I've been hearing about a bunch of them. How many do you need before you understand that they criteria you think they are using is not really what they are using?

nan said:

dave23 said:
One.

 I also previously posted about Venezuela Analysis (I think that was the name) and I've been hearing about a bunch of them. How many do you need before you understand that they criteria you think they are using is not really what they are using?

If you could explain to me how entities under organizations like Liberty Front Press did not try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc., that would be great.

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
One.

 I also previously posted about Venezuela Analysis (I think that was the name) and I've been hearing about a bunch of them. How many do you need before you understand that they criteria you think they are using is not really what they are using?

If you could explain to me how entities under organizations like Liberty Front Press did not try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc., that would be great.

 That would be getting us too far afield from the elephant in the room which is the neocon shutdown of alternative media.

Facebook Censorship of Alternative Media ‘Just the Beginning,’ Warns Top Neocon Insider

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/10/24/facebook-censorship-of-alternative-media-just-the-beginning-warns-top-neocon-insider/

excerpts:

 journalistic insider’s account of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, Shattered, revealed that “in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss.” Her top advisers were summoned the following day, according to the book, “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up … Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Less than three weeks after Clinton’s defeat, The Washington Post’s Craig Timberg published a dubiously sourced report headlined, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news.’” The article hyped up a McCarthyite effort by a shadowy, anonymously run organization called PropOrNot to blacklist some 200 American media outlets as Russian “online propaganda.”

The alternative media outfits on the PropOrNot blacklist included some of those recently purged by Facebook and Twitter, such as The Free Thought Project and Anti-Media. Among the criteriaPropOrNot identified as signs of Russian propaganda were: “Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone” and “Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad.” PropOrNot called for “formal investigations by the U.S. government” into the outlets it had blacklisted.

According to Timberg, who uncritically promoted the media suppression initiative, Propornot was established by “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” Timberg quoted a figure associated with the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, Andrew Weisburd, and cited a report he wrote with his colleague, Clint Watts, on Russian meddling.

Timberg’s piece on PropOrNot was promoted widely by former top Clinton staffers and celebrated by ex-Obama White House aide Dan Pfeiffer as “the biggest story in the world.” But after a wave of stinging criticism, including in the pages ofThe New Yorker, the article was amended with an editor’s note stating, “The [Washington] Post… does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”

PropOrNot had been seemingly exposed as a McCarthyite sham, but the concept behind it — exposing online American media outlets as vehicles for Kremlin “active measures” — continued to flourish.

The Atlantic Council is another Washington-based think tank that serves as a gathering point for neoconservatives and liberal interventionists pushing military aggression around the globe. It is funded by NATO and repressive, US-allied governments including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Turkey, as well as by Ukrainian oligarchs like Victor Pynchuk.

This May, Facebook announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) to “identify, expose, and explain disinformation during elections around the world.”

The Atlantic Council’s DFRLab is notorious for its zealous conflation of legitimate online dissent with illicit Russian activity, embracing the same tactics as PropOrNot and the ASD.

Ben Nimmo, a DFRLab fellow who has built his reputation on flushing out online Kremlin influence networks, embarked on an embarrassing witch hunt this year that saw him misidentify several living, breathing individuals as Russian bots or Kremlin “influence accounts.” Nimmo’s victims included Mariam Susli, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert pianist Valentina Lisitsa, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.

No, it would be getting to the core of your complaint.

dave23 said:
No, it would be getting to the core of your complaint.

 I got to the core of my complaint from the get go.

Here's an interview with the authors of the article I posted about above.  They go into more detail, especially on the people involved and how media censorship intersects with Russiagate propaganda.  Maybe it's time to wonder if neocons are the best watchdogs of democracy and free speech?  Cause as it is made clear in the article and the video, this purge is just the beginning.

oy

oy

In the video they recommend a book about the origins of the internet as a military surveillance project. 

Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet  by Yasha Levine

https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Valley-Military-History-Internet/dp/1610398025/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

In this fascinating book, investigative reporter Yasha Levine uncovers the secret origins of the internet, tracing it back to a Pentagon counterinsurgency surveillance project.

A visionary intelligence officer, William Godel, realized that the key to winning the war in Vietnam was not outgunning the enemy, but using new information technology to understand their motives and anticipate their movements. This idea--using computers to spy on people and groups perceived as a threat, both at home and abroad--drove ARPA to develop the internet in the 1960s, and continues to be at the heart of the modern internet we all know and use today. As Levine shows, surveillance wasn't something that suddenly appeared on the internet; it was woven into the fabric of the technology.

But this isn't just a story about the NSA or other domestic programs run by the government. As the book spins forward in time, Levine examines the private surveillance business that powers tech-industry giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, revealing how these companies spy on their users for profit, all while doing double duty as military and intelligence contractors. Levine shows that the military and Silicon Valley are effectively inseparable: a military-digital complex that permeates everything connected to the internet, even coopting and weaponizing the antigovernment privacy movement that sprang up in the wake of Edward Snowden.

With deep research, skilled storytelling, and provocative arguments, Surveillance Valley will change the way you think about the news--and the device on which you read it.

Call your buddy Jimmy Dore and ask him to file a formal protest with FB for taking down Cesar Sayoc's page.  Censorship!

I'm sure it's already in the works.

The MOL neocons are fine with a neocon censoring the media. Not exactly breaking news. 

Maybe if I put "neo" in front of all my words you'd attempt a semi-meaningful response? 

Sporin.

dave23 said:
Maybe if I put "neo" in front of all my words you'd attempt a semi-meaningful response? 

 Considering that it is an imaginary problem you invented, that would work as well as anything.  Putting cow poop on railroad tracks also effective. 

What I would prefer is to hear from you why you think these 800 pages were removed. What is your official stand on that, dave23?

nan said:
In the video they recommend a book about the origins of the internet as a military surveillance project. 
Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet  by Yasha Levine
https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Valley-Military-History-Internet/dp/1610398025/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

In this fascinating book, investigative reporter Yasha Levine uncovers the secret origins of the internet, tracing it back to a Pentagon counterinsurgency surveillance project.

A visionary intelligence officer, William Godel, realized that the key to winning the war in Vietnam was not outgunning the enemy, but using new information technology to understand their motives and anticipate their movements. This idea--using computers to spy on people and groups perceived as a threat, both at home and abroad--drove ARPA to develop the internet in the 1960s, and continues to be at the heart of the modern internet we all know and use today

The fact that beginning of the internet was funded through the Defense Department is well known.  The history of science and technical research in that era has lots of examples of academic research getting funding by pitching it to Defense; it's where the money was.  Another example, if you read the history of the LIGO gravitational wave detector that confirmed some of Einstein's work a couple of years ago, that had a lot of Defense funding as well.

I was unaware that the internet was created so that people would use it and then the government could spy on it.  That's interesting.  I guess Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone so people would use it, and one day the NSA could log their phone calls.