https://twitter.com/kr3at/status/806301894389956608

https://archive.is/OmtsY

Internet Censorship Database Announced By Google, Twitter, Facebook And Microsoft

Google, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft will launch a shared database to censor social networks in 2017.

> The world’s largest social networks have announced plans to launch a shared Internet censorship database in 2017 that will be able to scrub anything that is labeled as “extremist content” across all of their social networks.

> Facebook already has a tool in place that they recently revealed they are in discussions with to provide China access to in order to gain access to China’s 1.4 billion citizens.

> Currently the tool is being touted as a weapon to fight terrorism and hate speech but just defining what speech falls under the topic is a slippery slope.

> Twitter and Reddit have recently been actively banning conservative content and Twitter has even threatened to ban President-elect Donald Trump for hate speech.

> It is also no secret that Governments have long openly banned political content that had nothing to do with extremism or hate such as Japan’s ban of Fukushima news and just recently Italy’s ban on reporting on the referendum ahead of last Sunday’s vote.

> The news comes as the United States and Europe governments are separately pushing Internet censorship legislation into law, which has largely been kept off the radar of corporate media news outlets.

> The goals of the separate legislation is to crack down on what the establishment is labeling as “fake news” being spread as part of a Russia propaganda conspiracy.

> In reality the vast majority of the news that will be censored under the new legislation is nothing more than non-corporate news outlets simply reporting on issues in a manner that is critical policies of the government and establishment politicians, and their hidden power players such as special interests and lobbyists, on matters such as globalization, oversea wars, environmental issues and corruption.

1. Spread News

Spread this into #FakeNews and Freedom of Speech groups.

If they're this scared, it means people are listening to "Fake News".

Later, a hashtag may need to be created. Work on getting warm bodies for now, and the # may come naturally.

2. Boycott & Shill Alternatives

On twitter, if you put $ before the stock code, it acts like a # but for just for stocks. It's used by shareholders.

> Microsoft $MSFT

> Twitter $TWTR

> Google $GOOGL

> Facebook $FB (I think, please verify)

If the people looking for stock info on these companies see all the boycotting & "I'm switching to [other brand]" then it will not sit well. Obviously these companies are pushing it for more than money, but the less capital they have to use, the better.

In addition, point out companies hypocrisy (in Twitter's case- how threats made by celebs and even official ISIS accounts stay up, but Republicans and people reporting pedos are banned).

As for the alternatives:

> Microsoft - Linux (ask /tech/ for advice on how to make infographs for installing/using, particularly for Linux Mint), other email providers (ask /tech/).

> Twitter - sealion.club and Gab.AI apparently.

> Google - Startpage, other email providers, other smartphone brands. NOT DuckDuckGo (long thought to be a scam).

> Facebook - Seen.Life

3. Create infographs to aid in step 1 and 2

Provide sources, make it clear to read, and use emotional language (but never lie).

4. Disnod people working with the above

This is a big step, and should be undertaken only when this takes off.

It's not the same as asking someone to stop advertising on a website they deemed easy ad-space. We're asking them to drop affiliation with the biggest companies on earth- not to mention half of them might be in bed with their ideals.

But, we also helped strip Gawker of 6 figures before Hogan even looked at them.

Free Speech online is on the line.

Without it, we can't redpill people on social media. We can't show how many we are. We can't connect.

Trump showed the world we are many. And now, they're trying to tape our mouth shut so they can speak for us for a few generations- all while claiming bad is good, wrong is right, there's nothing to fear, and real investigation is fake news.

Time to bite their fucking hand off.

>>329022

I request permission to take a screenshot and spread this to Twitter and Facebook.

This shit is serious. Can we get /pol/ for this? We might not be on the best of terms, but this affects their ability to spread redpills just as it affects #GamerGate's ability to spread information.

>>329023

>screenshot

Maybe on r/KiA but as usual I'm a bit concerned about spreading Imageboard posts on non-Imageboards.

>>329024

We need to spread this as far and wide as possible, and I don't think we have the userbase to do it by ourselves.

Hell, I'd even rent some Twitter bots to spread this if I had the money.

The thing is, we need to break containment by any means necessary.

>>329022

Alternatives:

twatter - wasn't there a question mark about Gab.ai? Or is it ok?

League For Gamers - for gamers obviously, probably not normies.

Anyone still use Voat?

These 4 companies are the ones the EU Commission were doing a report on regarding hate speech. May just be that this announcement is to coincide with that, while it's in the news. Time will tell how effective this will be - also depends if it becomes a money drain.

>>329028

I believe people on /pol/ were talking about how Gab.ai is run/owned by a jew, so there's questions as to how impartial it can be.

>>329028

>Anyone still use Voat?

Voat users are outraged at the owners for censoring shit last time I heard of them, so its probably R-I-P

>>329025

I mean, feel free to share the information but I have certain anxiousness towards actually screencapping something in a Imageboard format.

>>329030

Well, Gab is allowing Pizzagate discussion,with no censorship. There's people mocking SJWs on there aswell, so it can't be any worse than say Imzy.

>>329033

Yeah it's probably just /pol/ being /pol/

>>329022

I'm the anon in OP's first image. When I wrote all that, the vision in my head was people from all political stripes trying to change our culture, something which will take decades.

When it comes to the here and now – like the current fake news controversy and the newly announced silicon valley censor network – these battles are going to retain the character of being left vs right, with the usual amounts of respect given to the other side.

This is why going back to the founding fathers feels essential to me. It's why John Stuart Mill is essential. People are willing to respect the Enlightenment period and the 19th century thinkers. Americans in particular absolutely revere the founding fathers.

When you excerpt arguments from this era, people are willing to suspend their party affiliation. They will view these as arguments made in good faith. They are willing to be intellectually humble - that their beliefs might be wrong and need to be corrected. The overtones from this era just feel so weighty and monumentally important. Hopefully people will feel moved enough to vocally support a movement like this.

This also represents a type of potential cultural movement that is very timeless. It can ride out the storms of daily political skirmishes, so to speak. That is to say, this potential movement won't have failed even if it doesn't change the current course of the "fake news controversy" or the current path towards a social network "censorship database". More than being timeless, these 18-19th century arguments for free speech and the figures behind them (the founding fathers, JSM, etc.) cannot be permanently marked with a particular group, a particular website, a particular political party or ideology. People can keep spreading images and excerpts a year from now (or two years from now, or a decade from now…) without the audience going "oh, this is just the dumb Republican side again", "this is just the Trump troll position again", "this is just the crazy alt-righter position again", or whatever.

(The obvious contrast is with Gamergate… Consider how one would discuss ethics in journalism, video game censorship, progressive pushing, and so on. Here everything is much more "permanently marked" because the ideas and supporters are all from this era. This is a big reason why people will frequently go "oh, it's just the gator position again.")

I liked the phrase 'cultural restoration' because it sounds like we're advocating to go back to the nation/culture that we were before. It suggests the idea that we collectively let our own house fall apart by not doing regular maintenance and now we need to do major renovation instead.

~~~

OK. So for those who read all that, those who are of like minds and want to join, those who want to see a big movement, let's also admit we're patting ourselves on the back a little bit and gain some perspective. Freedom of Speech in the sense of classical liberalism is being fought for (haphazardly) by tons of other people besides us, including certain youtubers, certain social media people, some journalists, some academics, and so on.

In other words, many armies are already deployed on the map and we're a fresh new division. What are we bringing new to the table?

It's probably creating and spreading viral content. I've also been suggesting that perhaps we should become the division of this vast army that distinguishes itself with purity towards the mission (in the sense of being timeless, apolitical).

Like, Milo advocates for free speech in his own way, as does Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad, Christina Hoff Sommers, Dr. Jordan Peterson, etc. etc. but they are all people with multifaceted beliefs. These people have to spread their freedom of speech message while being permanently marked by every other political position they take. We could become the special forces unit that isn't easily cornered like that. We'd have to target people on all parts of the political spectrum equally. We'd have to keep other political beliefs at arms length. We would try to avoid making a brand that indulges in worship/alliances/favoritism towards particular people who already have their own brands (like the ones I just mentioned).

Even if our movement can pick up steam quickly, I really do think the long term war will take decades. When I was a kid, I distinctly remember not just the phrase "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" and but also ''how rehearsed'' people would say it and repeat it, in a manner that emphasized how assumed it was. Today is 2-3 decades later, and you wouldn't bet a dollar on a random person believing it, especially a leftie.

no bully please; I'm not trying to have a leaderfag tone with the last few paragraphs. It is just my food for thought.

>>329035

For fun I did a twitter search for the exact phrase "Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" and counted the number of tweets between Nov 1st - Nov 30th. It's 751 tweets. with a little grep'ing of this html file, I could also easily produce a list of every twitter account that said it. That might be useful for doing something later

I couldn't think of a good "opposite" search phrase to do as a comparison. If you search for "hate speech", it seemed like an endless number of results and I couldn't even reach Nov 28th before I gave up pressing "page down".

>>329023

Like >>329024 says, do it. For social media- this might be too large/long to be easily read (or hold people's attention)

Summarize, use emotional language, explain how it directly affects them, and what they can do to help.

/pol/ can help, but they are heavily shilled. I assume they already know, but start a thread there anyway. Then let it run it's course. Even if that thread dive-bombs, people will see it, and they will act.

>>329025

Bots get blocked- even blocks that promote what I like I tend to block.

You need warm bodies- people that can interact and talk.

But yes, spread it however you can. Get on Tumblr, get on LiveLeak. Hell, get SJWs on board if you twist it to sound like Trump will use it!

And mention it to people IRL. You'll be surprised how far it goes.

>>329028

>twatter - wasn't there a question mark about Gab.ai? Or is it ok?

Was the first time I heard of it (from the article), so I wasn't sure.

LFG is kinda dead/slow IIRC, and Voat still needs to be pushed (it's style screams normalfag, but the dev is based IIRC)

> These 4 companies are the ones the EU Commission were doing a report on regarding hate speech. May just be that this announcement is to coincide with that, while it's in the news. Time will tell how effective this will be - also depends if it becomes a money drain.

IIRC, they made a similar demand last year and nothing happened (besides the already tightening noose). So unless the EU is throwing more money/law at it, I don't know.

Then again, Italy might leave, and UK declared Article 50. So EU might become a non-issue.

>>329033

IIRC, Imzy has been censoring things like Pizzagate, but I'm only going off one Tweet I vaguely remember.

>>329035

Good work. You've also hit on some other points:

• Know your target audience.

The people who will be loudest about this are those who honor the constitution. Likewise, the words of founding fathers would have more of an affect on them than, say, a tween girl.

Likewise, to get others on board, you might need to simplify the FFs words, or make historical comparisons to those who censored in the past.

Our biggest assets that we can offer, as you said, is meme magic. Or rather, keep talking about it so others talk about it (see the beaver picture in the OP). Likewise, we need OC- all the Viv James content got people pulled in, and the infographs informed.

We need infographs out the ASS. Get BoneGolem in here to teach others Infograph Making 101- then get to work.

We have the short battle (kill the censorship database ASAP), and the long war (re-instilling free-speech into people. Including the lesson "You'll hear shit you don't like. Debate it or ignore it, never censor it.").

We need to win both.

(polite sage for offtopic)

>>329028

Voat is still active but it has maybe 5% of Reddit's userbase. Most normies won't touch it with all of the nazis around, groupthink is a real problem, and it still goes down when something gets popular. Reddit banning Pizzagate has brought people to Voat so it might be more active these days.

>>329032

> Voat users are outraged at the owners for censoring shit last time I heard of them, so its probably R-I-P

There is one troll called Amalek who shits up the place with Nazi propaganda and screams about censorship whenever another of his alts is banned. Everyone thinks he is paid to make the site look bad.

If there was another censorship controversy, I have not heard of it.

https://twitter.com/RageGoldenEagle/status/806657927637598208

Raging Golden Eagle's latest vid. Related to the EU's begging side of it.

There's something else to add: Aside from any paranoia and desire to control people, there's a common factor among those with assumed power - money - and if not a desire to make more money, there's people within those spheres smart enough to know what is required to create opportunities to do so. The point of that is - some of those people are smart - some are business smart - and good at what they do - some are creatively good at what they do - but not in encompassing all. By that I mean that they know they cannot conceive of everything, and they understand that others have to be given the freedom to do so, else the underlying driving factor - money - dries up. That freedom also means the freedom to think.

Take a look at Gookanon's Korea thread, regarding the SK gaming industry, as an example of what not to do.

From a business standpoint, killing off a productive, financially successful industry is ludicrous. People with jobs boost the local and wider economy. It's the same from a political standpoint - a politician's life is far easier when people are preoccupied with work and leisure. It's not hard for a politician to realize that you can't tax an industry that's not there, or people not earning. Bureaucrats riding the gravy train can't oversee or regulate an industry that's not there either.

Business and politicians pretty much go hand-in-hand - not here to argue that or spiral off into the rights or wrongs of it - it happens, yeh great. Who holds the power in that dynamic? Business - they're the ones with the financial clout. They can lobby and donate and no doubt throw in a few backhanders to prop up their own interests, but they know it's other people, that left to their own devices, will create more opportunities for future business than they can create themselves. Stifling peoples ability to communicate ideas will always have a knock-on effect on business. Restrictions will only go so far before money steps in and upends it.

>>329054

Restrictions will continue to go up until its impossible for competition to rise up. A monopoly has more money to give to politicians than multiple non-monopolies, since they are not forced to compete with others by adopting policies which could harm their profit margin, such as selling products for less or working towards better quality. When politicians and businesses let a new company entrance into the market, both lose.

Where was I even going with this? I have a blank. Nevermind.

>>329055

>dubs

I get what you mean, though it's worth mentioning another part of the business world with money that holds a lot of sway - investors. There are always people in the investment world (small and large) looking out for (new) ways to make money and new opportunities will always pop up that will attract them. Don't know how much a monopoly suits them, but some of them aren't exactly shrinking violets - risk-reward is the game they play - and they like to play it. Some political nonsense isn't going to stop them.

With reference to the op, what I mean is new alternatives will always appear, and it's true that existing ones need to be pushed more.

Also not not mentioned - and ties in with promoting alternatives - people's concern for their online privacy. Fagbook twatter google + microshaft aren't renowned for keeping users info private - they share a lot of info with 'partners' and 'affiliates' - it's as vague as that - so maybe pushing that meme would work - 'Is your personal data safe?' (with each company) sort of thing.

>>329057

>not not

• not

>>329022

This is misinfo based on a bullshit clickbait article.

Here is the real announcement that it's based on, it's video/image hashes (NOT text) of "violent terrorist imagery or terrorist recruitment videos or images that we have removed from our services". It has nothing to do with "hate speech", China, "fake news", censorship legislation, or any of the other bullshit that the article made up:

>Partnering to Help Curb Spread of Online Terrorist Content

http://archive.is/ZnGbY

>Starting today, we commit to the creation of a shared industry database of “hashes” — unique digital “fingerprints” — for violent terrorist imagery or terrorist recruitment videos or images that we have removed from our services. By sharing this information with each other, we may use the shared hashes to help identify potential terrorist content on our respective hosted consumer platforms. We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online.

>Our companies will begin sharing hashes of the most extreme and egregious terrorist images and videos we have removed from our services — content most likely to violate all of our respective companies’ content policies. Participating companies can add hashes of terrorist images or videos that are identified on one of our platforms to the database. Other participating companies can then use those hashes to identify such content on their services, review against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.

>As we continue to collaborate and share best practices, each company will independently determine what image and video hashes to contribute to the shared database. No personally identifiable information will be shared, and matching content will not be automatically removed. Each company will continue to apply its own policies and definitions of terrorist content when deciding whether to remove content when a match to a shared hash is found. And each company will continue to apply its practice of transparency and review for any government requests, as well as retain its own appeal process for removal decisions and grievances. As part of this collaboration, we will all focus on how to involve additional companies in the future.

You don't have to agree with this measure and I personally think censoring ISIS is a PR move that doesn't accomplish anything. You can worry it's a slippery slope to censoring other things. But the database has nothing to do with text (only images/videos), doesn't try to ban anything too nebulous like hate speech, doesn't even ban all pro-terrorist content (only recruitment and images/videos depicting violence), and is supposed to be for the "most egregious" videos/images that are against the rules of all three platforms.

That article and post isn't about the reality, it's just a bunch of bullshit that does nothing but misinform people who care about censorship and make them look like scaremongering idiots if they spread it. Even if you want people to campaign against this database, that means informing people about what it actually is, not spreading misinformation like this. Personally I'd be more concerned with the UK's recent internet-surveillance legislation, that shit seems fucking insane.

>>329059

>Facebook says it so its true

>Just ignore what actual EU officials are saying

You should probably kill yourself.

>>329054

You have to seriously consider the possibility that there's a decadence in process and that the upper classes are okay with it because they prefer the country going to shit than they being replaced by a new elite that can out-compete them

Check any history book, thats how empires go to shit: the ones at the top don't like the competition, and those that became rich off corruption don't want said corruption to ever end, even if it ends up destroying the country

>Bureaucrats riding the gravy train can't oversee or regulate an industry that's not there either.

They will move to regulate and tax other industries, you see that in a lot of latam countries that used to do well but thanks to socialism ended up with only one industry that brings home the money and gets taxed to hell to keep the bureaucracy alive

>>329055

Also this

>>329057

I work in tech, a lot of investors are going to other countries because silicon valley has become this huge mass of nepotism and rich assholes who can't deliver shit anymore

>>329059

The patriot act was also about fighting terrorism and ended up being used to fuck innocent people instead

>>329060

The EU story is completely unrelated and is itself distorted, it has nothing to do with the database. It's only quoted as part of the same blog post to serve the author's narrative, the same way the author claims it's related to Chinese censorship somehow. It's like when an article brings up a story about some random person being SWATed in a story about GG.

>>329059

>You don't have to agree with this measure and I personally think censoring ISIS is a PR move that doesn't accomplish anything. You can worry it's a slippery slope to censoring other things. But the database has nothing to do with text (only images/videos), doesn't try to ban anything too nebulous like hate speech, doesn't even ban all pro-terrorist content (only recruitment and images/videos depicting violence), and is supposed to be for the "most egregious" videos/images that are against the rules of all three platforms.

Not the OP, but I have several responses to your post overall.

(spoiler: I don't want to argue any of your points. The OP should use your article or something like the reuters one: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-extremism-database-idUSKBN13U2W8 The OP should be more careful how we advocate raising alarm. I'm glad that we have responses like yours to even us out, I probably should have done so myself! But in the name of keeping both sides motivated, I want to argue my points that we should be raising an alarm)

1. This is why I opined that the problem is cultural. The nation, collectively, should be so god damn ''uneasy about a censor network even when we want the stated purpose to happen'' (to streamline the process of matching extremist content). Even if we are okay with going ahead with the censor network! But we're not uneasy. This is how unvigilant we collectively are about free speech.

It's the same with youtube demonetization, facebook's old manually edited newsfeed, twitter messing with trending hashtags, websites marked as fake news articles. None of this is stuff that the populace should demand be stopped. All of this stuff would play out A-OK in some versions of future history, but be fucking awful in other versions. The more uneasy the culture is about it, the happier scenarios we get because the companies involved don't want to fuck up.

1. As a more practical matter, why aren't people demanding more transparency about the censor network? How are "regular people" (i.e. plainly non-extremist) going to share the censored images for purposes of discussing the current threshold for extremism?

To see what I mean, take for example the napalm girl photo that Facebook censored (this isn't 'extremist' content, so it wouldn't have been added to the censor network anyway, but I need an example). Regular people and news organizations circulated this photo to discuss Facebook's thresholds for violence. Regular people and news organizations conceivably could want discuss thresholds for extremist content by using such examples too.

But if there's a censor network, maybe you wouldn't be able to Google the photo or retweet the photo. If you found the photo anyway and wrote an article about the threshold, maybe your article wouldn't should up on Google/Facebook/Twitter/Bing.

1. It's not clear to me what is going to happen with EU hate speech laws. Yes, this issue is not directly connected to the censor database - I understand the news story as well as you do. But as I have been arguing we want a movement that is about freedom of speech in general and not about one day-to-day skirmish.

EU hate speech is a very nuanced question, I won't believe you if you say it is clearly settled one way or the other. Because it is nuanced, it isn't being asked publically and answered directly.

Just a random list of why it's too nuanced for the current state of public discourse:

-It involves the question of EU censorship affecting US users, either by EU mandate or via lazy compliance by Silicon Valley.

-It involves the question of whether Facebook/Google/etc even WANT to protect the US's version of free speech, disregarding the question of laziness and being forced to.

-Due to the current brinksmanship going between EU and Silicon Valley, the later seem to be trying be terse and coy about their responses to the ongoing EU demands. Silicon Valley is understandably trying to be maximally protective of their independence, but it is costing the public clarity about what's going to happen.

1. The risk of political censorship on any social website is not zero. Again, I'm not talking about about the extremist database. I gave a list of innocuous censorship activities in 1. that turned out to have concerns about political censorship. Then there's outright non-innocuous censorship, like Scott Adams style shadowbans, blatant reddit censorship, twitter selectively banning certain accounts (Milo, Ricky Vaughn).

Also, thanks for reminding me about the UK internet tracking thing, I had forgotten.

ONLINE CENSORSHIP BILL JUST PASSED THE SENATE

Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA

http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=3765A225-B773-4F57-B21A-A265F4B5692C

https://twitter.com/Sam_seau/status/807375271926136832

> WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

Great work guys- we didn't do anything. No one even knows this exists. No one even knows the tech companies are already gearing up for it. Sure it would have had to pass thanks to it being stabled to the back of the NDAA, but at least we've had people protesting before it was done- now we're on the back foot.

I tried to look up the article on OneAngryGamer, but the site is down https://archive.is/6vpH3 - nice glimse of what we have to look forward to.

Only hope now is for Trump to repeal it.

Hope you know how to be truly anonymous online- because you'll fucking need it after this.

I'm so fucking mad, I'll leave the other news in another post.

>>329077

http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/sites/default/files/Portman-Murphy%20Counter%20Foreign%20Propaganda%20and%20Disinformation%20Act.pdf

Initial analysis is as grim as you'd imagine.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/807385495562878976

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/807386022401036288

Since you're all too busy enjoying drama, the minute victories we're given, and not bothering to send emails, here's some tweets to help spread word.. It seems to be the one thing you still know how to do:

https://twitter.com/WDFx2EU26/status/807380288435261440

https://twitter.com/AmericaFirst16/status/807383222275424256

https://twitter.com/mtranquilnight/status/807383001667616772

https://twitter.com/thatsickfilth/status/807382418739130369

https://twitter.com/ElderOfZionism/status/807381839765733380

https://twitter.com/Hawk_Hopper/status/807381837127544832

https://twitter.com/F_the_lying_MSM/status/807381767871205376

https://twitter.com/GeeJamesFL/status/807384214362583041

https://twitter.com/thatsickfilth/status/807386099492540416

https://twitter.com/flulrich/status/807385601972596736

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/807384876919955456

https://twitter.com/P90xbogie/status/807384676482633728

https://twitter.com/JizzCannon/status/807386020446695425

https://twitter.com/NoMoreRomney/status/807386644567523328

Now if you idiots can manage a bit more, search "Contact Senator" and "Contact Representative".

You know what? I bet you can't even manage that. Here:

http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Now if you manage to get off your lazy ass when you're done crying over shit's happened because of shit you didn't do, tell them you want this opposed. Tell everyone else you know.

The US Government just declared it has a blank-check for whoever can brainwash civilians the best.

All the work we've done, the first blood we drew on SJWs and the Alt-Right having a chance to educate people- all down the drain because it'll be banned. Anyone questioning media being arrested or blocked.

I know you don't do emails anymore. Prove to me you can do something.

Or are you going to let them win?

>>329077

I think this bill is just about monitoring and countering foreign propaganda. It's not about "online censorship".

link: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/fighting-back-new-bill-aims-to-counter-russian-disinformation

archive: http://archive.is/Q6vyT

You are jumping to conclusions just because of the word "propaganda".

>>329078

>The US Government just declared it has a blank-check for whoever can brainwash civilians the best.

It didn't do anything of the sort.

Government speech is not censorship, and it's not equal to brainwashing. We identify and refute foreign info all the time, especially from China and Russia.

Brainwashing means suppression of the truth while pushing false or dishonest statements. That's not what the bill does, unless you can prove otherwise and not simply "insinuate wildly that the text of the bill is all double speak for brainwashing and censorship". To put it another way: suppose you were Congress and you were to write a bill that concerned itself with honestly exposing and counterclaiming foreign disinformation, how else would the bill be worded? I'm guessing that I would word it like this. This is a sign that your extraordinary claims are lacking the proverbial extraordinary evidence.

>>329078

Now if any of you are upset you're getting the drill-seargent treatment, it's because you fucking deserve it.

You don't send emails.

You only retweet drama.

And you're arguing with shills and getting off topic.

Even 6 months ago we would have ignored it, or called it out. We were fucking impenetrable.

You've gotten fat and lazy.

But here's one even you can do:

https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory/

Send Trump an email.

The mad bastard actually WANTS to hear from people. So tell him everything about that bill (while you can), and we might just get rid of it.

Otherwise- I hope you like Reddit. Because the whole Internet will become it- when they change public opinion by dog-pilling bot-posts approving/disapproving of everything.

>>329079

After a month of the media making "Fake News" a thing- and then claiming "Fake News" could have been set up by Russians to "Influence the Election".

And Obama is now asking for a report from the FBI to say the election was rigged by Ruskies?

After all the shit we've seen- how have you not learned the double-speak and lies and tactics?

>>329080

From the PDF:

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/807386022401036288

Pays people to shill- thereby manipulating the public on what the majority opinion really is.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/807386022401036288

Paid opinion pieces, to further manipulate what the majority is deemed.

When you change people's opinion based on anything except the truth- it is propaganda.

>>329062

>I work in tech, a lot of investors are going to other countries because silicon valley has become this huge mass of nepotism and rich assholes who can't deliver shit anymore

Yeh I wasn't being America-centric in mentioning investors. Silicon Valley lives in it's own bubble and when they get complacent and stop delivering, there's plenty of others around the world that can, and will, step up to deliver stuff that users will go for. Investment money will go there instead.

(In regards to gaming, AAA devs already outsource to places like India because they know they'll get results. Contrast that to the recent cry by hipster devs calling to unionize gamedev, and make what is a creative process a 9-to-5 job. The work doesn't get done/takes too long, and/or the quality drops. Hipsters think work is something to fit round their social life. Investors will continue to go to places like India because they know the people there will deliver long into the future.)

To make matters work, FBI just got legal president to hack PCs and smartphones.

https://archive.is/gioH6

http://thegoldwater.com/news/715-Federal-Agents-Allowed-To-Hack-Into-Phones-And-Computers-By-The-Rule-41-Alteration

>>>/newsplus/45839

Yes they were doing it already- except now they have no reason to hide it.

So they now know if you harbor Fake News opinions, even if you don't post online.

>>329078

/pol/ you don't run things.

>>329087

>So they now know if you harbor Fake News opinions, even if you don't post online.

They wanted to see what my high score in Plants vs. Zombies 2? Because that's all they're going to find on my phone.

Plaing mobile games makes one a terrorist, I suppose.

>>329089

>>329089

>>329059

>>329063

>>329079

>>329080

>>329089

Great vid from RagingGoldenEagle raising an interesting point: If their system uses hashes to detect "bad" content, then it's hilariously easy to game for anyone who's not an internet amateur.

Infographs are fine- as long as when you know it's being censored you change a minor thing. So you can still show pictures and video.

Text will be harder, since changing hashtags lessens it's effect.

However, we must assume they'll use more than automated processing.

Youtube Heroes could have been started up as training for the physical processing- thankfully it fell pretty hard, but that doesn't stop SJW signing up.

But it's a minor plus still; keep breaking the safe-space and eventually they'll lose their shit (as SJW and puritans always do) and fuck over even the normalfags. Then they lose customers and have constant bad press.

Don't rest on your ass- you should still fight this in every capacity- but it's not an impenetrable wall like it could have been.

>>329079

What about domestic propaganda?

Test

Guess who's funding Facebook's "fact checking"?

https://twitter.com/deYook/status/809852188570816512

https://archive.is/7x4Ot

> George Soros's Open Society Foundations will fund fact checking initiative

> Hungarian businessman donated more than $25million to Clinton's campaign

> Clinton super-donor Pierre Omidyar is also linked to the pilot project

> He has given more than $30million to the Clintons and their charities in past

> Facebook feature will flag 'disputed' stories to users before they share them

> Stories are reported to 'third party checkers' which include ABC and Snopes

I'll bet the disputed flag is only the first step. Either they'll slowly have disputed stories appear less and less on feeds, then claim "I guess people don't click them anymore"- or just outright ban anything they deem fake.

Other relevant thread:

>>>/gamergatehq/329096

Please repost this in GG bread's on /v/.

Facebook's secret rules for deletion

https://archive.is/ym2g7

https://twitter.com/SZ_Intl/status/809702437913264128

Got leaked.

Pretty nazi-like with a (superior) protected class, and everyone else.

>>329142

>Continent of origin: e.g. European or South American. Here, special risks are listed for the following terms: Asians (protected in the race category); American or Australian (protected in the national origin category)

Wonderful, the Aussies can troll you, but if you troll them back you get banned for racism.

>>329077

https://archive.is/XgKV1

And it passed.

Or fucking similar.

Using Holidays As A Distraction,Obama Just Signed NDAA “Propaganda” Provision To Destroy Free Press

>>329177

And to tweet it, a source (the website above has not tweeted their own article):

https://twitter.com/TLAVagabond/status/812775240363147264

2013, Obama administration repeals propaganda ban, making it possible for the government to spread propaganda through the news

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/

2016, Obama administration pass a bill that will outlaw anyone debunking governemental propaganda, or anyone going against the false narrative of the day.

Might help redpill people better.

>>329191

You can add to that Germany and their war on "fake news" on social media.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/facebook-fake-news-germany-threatens-new-law-big-fines/

Reminder that without the social media outcry, the cologne rape of 2015 would have never made the news since it was hidden by the government itself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-police-ordered-to-remove-word-rape-from-reports-into-new-year-s-eve-sexual-assaults-a6972471.html

Similar to the thread topic;

> The New York Times, Guardian, Wikipedia and The Economist are all testing a political discussion filtering system called Perspective API.

Basically if it's not corporate talk, it's flagged.

http://www.perspectiveapi.com/

Dig IMO.