Tuesday, June 05, 2018


"Ecuadorian foreign minister asserts treatment of Assange is “not censorship”" (Cogan):
"Espinosa justified her government’s action by condemning Assange for doing what journalists should do: comment on and raise awareness about political issues.

She told Associated Press: “On several occasions he [Assange] has agreed on not intervening in internal politics of third-party countries and unfortunately he has not complied with his commitment, so for the time being he is not allowed to have access to the internet.”

In her most remarkable statement, she asserted that depriving one of the best known investigative journalists and exposers of government criminality of their ability to communicate was “not a matter of censorship.”

Assange is not only being censored by the Ecuadorian government, but far worse. It is working as part of a calculated attempt to break Julian Assange and pressure him into “voluntarily” leaving the embassy into the hands of his persecutors.

Espinosa was in New York as part of Ecuador’s campaign for her to be named as the next president of the United Nations General Assembly. Pushing out Assange may well get her the vote of the US, British, Australian, and other governments that are part of the international conspiracy against WikiLeaks.

The statements of Ecuador’s foreign minister follow those last week by its President Moreno. In words that could have been spoken by any police-state dictator, he asserted that there was “responsible liberty” and “liberty in which everyone thinks they can do whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want.”

In the Orwellian world that a global campaign of internet and state censorship is seeking to create, the mass of the population will be cut off from all information and political commentary that exposes and challenges the unprecedented levels of social inequality, oppression and war.

The internet conglomerates such as Google and Facebook, along with the establishment media, are the enforcers of “responsible liberty,” “responsible journalism” and “responsible politics”—that is, the silencing of any opposition to the capitalist system which has enabled just eight individuals to amass more wealth than half the world’s population and threatens to plunge humanity into a nuclear third world war."
99% of the wrongthink comes from 1% of the posting population, so they'll just assange them:  "Facebook security officer: Not all speech is “created equal”" (Damon):
 ". . . instead of seeking to determine if a piece of news is “fake,” Facebook is carrying out mass profiling of news sources by “Look[ing] to metadata around the people who have created the account, the news site that’s running it,” to evaluate whether it is “trustworthy.” Through this Orwellian censorship regime, Facebook segregates news organizations into categories and determines how many people are able to view their postings on that basis.

In other words, the company’s evaluation of whether a piece of news is “fake” is determined not by whether it is accurate, factually grounded or verifiable, but rather by who posts it. The logical implication is that if one of Facebook’s “partners” in the establishment media posts a story, no matter how inaccurate, biased, or poorly sourced, the company will still promote it as “trustworthy.”

Facebook’s policy on “fake news,” in other words, is political blacklisting."
It is pretty clever.  Obviously, the idea that they need to police untruths that are misleading the population isn't the motivation.  Ninety-some percent of the contents of each edition of the New York Times or Washington Post consists of easily refutable lies.  They wouldn't get anywhere if they hired readers to identify and remove untruths (these attempts have already bogged down).  What worries them are people who are publishing material that subverts the plans of the oligarchs, and truly subversive material is almost entirely true.  The way around the problem is to censor based on a kind of search engine analysis.  First, you identify the most woke people, and examine what they publish.  Then, you find who links to them, and start to build a wokenness index based on how often they link to, and share, wrongthink.  Eventually, you have a full matrix of subversives and their material, and can censor accordingly.  The subversives won't necessarily be executed, just assanged, shadowbanned (the most effective censorship is cutting writers off from any readership without letting them know!), barred from platforms for not meeting 'terms of service', or simply cut off, physically or electronically, from the internet.  Wokenness problem solved!

Of course, this is easier with Facebook, where posters have to post from within the platform (you can see why Facebooks's outrageous behavior hasn't received any real attention from politicians, who like the monopoly aspect and its consistent Evil), but you could easily extrapolate to the wider internet.  People can still publish anonymously from internet cafés, but such postings have much less readership, and anonymous posting will presumably be soon shut down.  As soon as any covert poster develops a following, the links to the posts will bring the poster and the posts into the censorship matrix, so the damage is slight before they shut the door.
blog comments powered by Disqus