It Is Indeed A Scary Time And We Are Not Talking About Halloween!

Google=Censorship

The Anti-Conservative Soros Funded Censorship Plan Laid Bare

MEMO REVEALS SOROS-FUNDED SOCIAL-MEDIA CENSORSHIP PLAN

Plotted with Google, Facebook to eliminate 'right wing propaganda'

Published: 7 days ago

image: https://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/Art-Moore_avatar-96x96.jpg

ART MOORE About | Email | Archive

image: https://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Subscribe to feed

4.7K

Share on Facebook

 

Share on Twitter

 

Email

 4.7K

image: https://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif

 Print

 

 

image: https://www.wnd.com/files/2018/08/soros.jpg

George Soros

The recent wave of censorship of conservative voices on the internet by tech giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Apple mirrors a plan concocted by a coalition of George Soros-funded, progressive groups to take back power in Washington from President Trump’s administration.

A confidential, 49-page memo for defeating Trump by working with the major social-media platforms to eliminate “right wing propaganda and fake news” was presented in January 2017  by Media Matters founder David Brock at a retreat in Florida with about 100 donors, the Washington Free Beacon reported at the time.

On Monday, the Gateway Pundit blog noted the memo’s relationship with recent moves by Silicon Valley tech giants to “shadow ban” conservative political candidates and pundits and remove content.

The Free Beacon obtained a copy of the memo, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” by attending the retreat.

The memo spells out a four-year agenda that deployed Media Matters along with American Bridge, Shareblue and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to attack Trump and Republicans.

The strategies are impeachment, expanding Media Matters’ mission to combat “government misinformation,” ensuring Democratic control of the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections, filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, monetizing political advocacy, using a “digital attacker” to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and damage Republicans, and partnering with Facebook to combat “fake news.”

Quashing ‘fake news’ with ‘mathematical precision’

The Free Beacon in its January 2017 story said Brock sought to raise $40 million in 2017 for his organizations.

The document claims Media Matters and far-left groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”

“The earlier we can identify a fake news story, the more effectively we can quash it,” the memo states. “With this new technology at our fingertips, researchers monitoring news in real time will be able to identify the origins of a lie with mathematical precision, creating an early warning system for fake news and disinformation.”

Media Matters met with Facebook, which boasts some 2 billion members worldwide, to discuss how to crack down on fake news, according to the memo.

The social media giant was provided with “a detailed map of the constellation of right-wing Facebook pages that had been the biggest purveyors of fake news.”

Brock’s memo also says Media Matters gave Google “the information necessary to identify 40 of the worst fake new sites” so they could be banned from Google’s advertising network.

The Gateway Pundit pointed out that in 2016, Google carried out that plan on the Gateway Pundit blog and other conservative sites, including Breitbart, the Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse.

Facebook, meanwhile has changed its newsfeed algorithm, ostensibly to combat “fake news,” causing a precipitous decline in traffic for many conservative sites.

President Donald Trump himself was affected, with his engagement on Facebook dropping by 45 percent.

A study in June by Gateway Pundit found Facebook had eliminated 93 percent of the traffic of top conservative news outlets.

Western Journal, in its own study, found that while left-wing publishers saw a roughly 2 percent increase in web traffic from Facebook following the algorithm changes, conservative sites saw a loss of traffic averaging around 14 percent.

‘Totalitarian impulse’ of the leftFnd Out More >

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/mask-off-social-media-censor-king-revealed/#8ioOXPlKH7DAM4TY.99

Censoring Any Person Is Immoral And Abhorrent!

Google Censors Leading 

Conservative Candidate

• 08/24/2018 
• Source: AAN 
• by: AAN Staff

13 15 3  47

image: https://aanews-structure-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/
aanews/media/picture/582f/41ad/6970/2d72/9364/0200/Slideshow_google.
png?1517074724

SPECIAL:YOU'LL NEVER THINK ABOUT SOLAR PANELS AFTER SEEING THIS

A group affiliated with Kelli Ward's insurgent Senate campaign believe their
 efforts to promote the conservative lighting rod online are being thwarted by
 Google's advertising department.

For over two weeks, Political Media, Inc., has done everything through the
 proper channels to promote a site they say highlights Martha McSally's 
anti-conservative credentials.

"We've been placing digital ads on Google for decades and we have never
seen anything like this," says Ward.

With the Republican primary in Arizona coming up this Tuesday, Ward (no
relation to the candidate) says the whole affair "reeks of censorship."

According to a press release from the organization, this is not the first time
Google has targeted the conservative firm in a politically competitive race.

Political Media, Inc. is no stranger to corporate censorship. In 2012, the

digital marketing agency called out Facebook for censoring content they

promoted for the veterans-backed organization Special Operations Speaks.

The social network suspended Special Operations Speaks after the group

released a meme openly challenging President Barack Obama's response

to the Benghazi incident.

Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/google-censors-leading-conservative-candidate#ZuKeX8ukM7w4VcgV.99

Freedom Of Speech (Including Non Violent Hate Speech) Is The Bedrock Of Our Society And Must Be Preserved.

VIDEO: TUCKER CARLSON COMES OUT IN SUPPORT OF ALEX JONES’ FREE SPEECH

Tucker points out ban is part of larger purge of conservatives from electronic town squares

Infowars.com - AUGUST 19, 2018 

IMAGE CREDITS: SCREENSHOT/FOXNEWS.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson came out in defense of Alex Jones’ free speech Friday amid Big Tech’s censorship of Infowars, citing the First Amendment as a “central principle of our society.”

Tucker has an excellent guest on who breaks down the massive cowardice inside the conservative and nationalist movement and the fact that we’re now under a liberal thought dictatorship that is as authoritarian as Stalin and Hitler.

If You Find Something Wrong With This Ad, You Are Either A Strong Democrat Or A Believer In Censorship--We Repeat Ourselves

MORE BIG TECH ELECTION MEDDLING: TWITTER BLOCKS CALI. GOP CANDIDATE’S AD

Ad exposed horrors of Cambodia’s brutal communist uprising

Adan Salazar | Infowars.com - AUGUST 16, 2018 

IMAGE CREDITS: YOUTUBE.

A campaign ad for a California Republican congressional candidate was banned by Twitter Thursday, in what is being seen as a deliberate act of midterm election meddling.

Twitter cited “obscene” content for blocking Elizabeth Heng’s ad, which discusses her family’s struggle fleeing Cambodia following the rise of Pol Pot and the brutal Khmer Rouge communist regime.

In a press release obtained by Breitbart, the Heng campaign said they attempted to appeal Twitter’s decision, but the company answered back saying the video was banned due to “offensive” material.

“In recent attempts to advertise Elizabeth Heng’s campaign video on Twitter, the campaign has received a message from the company stating that upon review, the ad is ‘ineligible to participate in the Twitter Ads program at this time based on our Inappropriate Content policy.’ Twitter defined inappropriate content as ‘that which is offensive, vulgar, or obscene,’” the press release stated.

After the campaign appealed the ban, Twitter sent back another message, bolding the word “obscene”:

“When the campaign reached out for clarification on the exact content in violation, Twitter responded with the same message they had sent previously, highlighting the word ‘obscene’ in bold. The campaign pressed to resolve the issue, but was sent a final message from the Twitter Ads Support team saying they had reconfirmed that the ad was not eligible to run on Twitter and that they could ‘no longer assist or support any further requests.’”

Facebook had also banned Heng’s ad just 10 days earlier, however the social media giant came to its senses and reversed its decision, saying there was nothing “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational” about it.

“Upon further review, it is clear the video contains historical imagery relevant to the candidate’s story. We have since approved the ad and it is now running on Facebook,” Facebook officials clarified.

In Facebook’s case, they had initially claimed the ad’s depiction of images from the Cambodian genocide violated a policy on content intended to “shock or scare.”

It remains to be seen whether Twitter will act accordingly and reverse their decision.

Dissent Is Important And Censorship Is Bad Regardless Whose Ox Is Being Gored!

LIBERAL PROFESSOR WARNS CENSORSHIP OF INFOWARS WILL BACKFIRE ON THE LEFT

Says “hate speech” is a political tool to shut down dissent

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - AUGUST 10, 2018 

Professor Erik Nielson warns in a New York Times op-ed that the kind of censorship that saw Infowars banned from most major social media platforms this week will eventually backfire on the left.

In an article entitled If We Silence Hate Speech, Will We Silence Resistance?, Nielson, who is an associate professor of liberal arts at the University of Richmond, writes that “mounting pressure from the political left to censor hateful speech may have unintended consequences.”

Cautioning that leftists should be “wary” of applauding the likes of Apple, Facebook and YouTube banning Alex Jones, Nielson writes, “If we become overzealous in our efforts to limit so-called hate speech, we run the risk of setting a trap for the very people we’re trying to defend.”

The professor cites inflammatory rhetoric used by black leaders after the civil rights era which led to them being put under surveillance and subjected to harassment by the FBI under the justification of them being labeled “hate groups”.

He also cites the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, which “federal lawmakers have increasingly tried to shut the movement down by accusing it of hate speech,” in addition to Black Lives Matter, which some have attempted to label a hate group by making the target of their anger, police officers, a protected class.

He also makes the point that the 2017 Women’s March was accused of engaging in “hate” because it had links to anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

“If we allowed these voices to be silenced on grounds that they promote hate, we’d find ourselves scrambling to defend the radical poets, musicians, filmmakers and other artists who have pushed the boundaries of expression into what could arguably amount to hate speech, but who have done so from the vanguard of social and political protest,” writes Nielson.

He also points to the hypocrisy of Spotify reversing its decision to “stop promoting artists who engage in hateful speech or conduct,” but then banning Alex Jones for that very reason.

“Within weeks, Spotify reversed course, noting that its policy was “vague.” But by silencing Mr. Jones on its platform, it’s not exactly clear where Spotify is drawing the line.

And that’s the inherent danger in attempting to limit something like hate. It can be so broadly defined that our efforts to counteract it will be broad, too.

If that happens, we risk silencing the voices and perspectives we can least afford to lose. That’s not a triumph over hate. That’s falling victim to it.”

Nielson’s argument will resonate with real liberals, but given that much of the left has abandoned liberal principles and aggressively supported censorship, so long as it’s directed against their political adversaries, don’t expect the blue check mark brigade on Twitter to embrace his position.