Recording of exec FACEBOOK: "WE WILL NOT ENGAGE IN CENSORSHIP!"

Isn't it Ironic!

Do you remember the War on Nursing Mothers on Facebook? Oh those were the days, when the modesty police disliked boobs working for babies. What was that about exactly? Early resentment of cis gendered chest feeders? I’m being facetious. I have no idea. Was it modesty? Given the sex online, why were boobs in the mouths of babes censored?

According to NAC.org “Mothers International Lactation Campaign (MILC) protested in front of Facebook headquarters after photos of mothers breastfeeding their children were removed from Facebook. Facebook said the images violated the terms of agreement (see also: Lori Drew). Heather Farley, a protest organizer, responded that Utah state law, for example,  doesn’t consider breastfeeding obscene and that Facebook should change its policy to allow pictures of breastfeeding. Read the article here.”

In the summer of 2006, we were on the cusp of moving into the world of online censorship by the powerful and monied interests. NAC issued a prophetic newsletter, known as Issue 102, Summer 2006:

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" – so said writer and critic A.J. Liebling. Now it appears the same dictum may ring true for the Internet, as Congress faces competing pressure from the telecom industry and free speech activists over the future of network neutrality.

Often called "the Internet’s First Amendment," net neutrality stands for the principle that those who own the infrastructure of the Web cannot discriminate between content. But last year, rule changes at the FCC essentially stripped the government of its longstanding role in enforcing net neutrality.

In recent months, Congress has been overhauling the Telecom Act. AT&T, BellSouth, Comcast, and Verizon – who collectively own 98% of the "pipes" over which Web content travels to you – have aggressively lobbied for permission to charge content providers for preferential treatment. In other words, you already pay for access to the Web; now the sites you browse may face a bidding war if they want their content to reach you as fast as their competitors’. Professor Robert McChesney points out, “They’re basically using their political leverage to change the law so they get a huge new revenue stream. It gives them an inordinate amount of power over the Internet." Some warn these changes could divide the "information superhighway" into one fast lane (with plenty of toll booths) and a dirt road for those who cannot "pay to play." But while the profit motive is a major factor, far more than money is potentially at stake.

A Web without net neutrality would be vulnerable to content manipulation. This occurred in Canada, where telecom industry giant Telus blocked access to a site sympathetic to its workers’ concerns during a labor dispute.

In a worst case scenario, companies might favor high-paying customers by blocking access to content they find objectionable, such as the sites of whistleblowers, activists, or political opponents. The Save the Internet campaign has united unlikely collaborators like the ACLU and Christian Coalition to press for legislation that will restore enforceable net neutrality protections.

The telecom companies have fought back, claiming that net neutrality is an unnecessary form of government interference and "a solution in search of a problem." They have spent millions on lobbying, and even launched a counter-campaign called “Hands Off the Internet” that mimics the appearance of a grassroots site. Consumer advocates and media critics roundly denounce the effort as misleading.

Still, despite the resemblance to a David and Goliath story line, a number of economic and technological subtleties make a quick fix elusive.

Experts warn that legislation to safeguard net neutrality must be carefully worded, lest it open loopholes for other, unanticipated abuses. Though generally wary of regulatory action, First Amendment advocates can stand confidently behind government intervention when it seeks to guarantee equal, open access to information, as net neutrality would do.”

Well did we ever fail that battle. Prophetic to a T. Have we not just lived through our social media sites favoring high-paying customers by blocking access to content they found objectionable, such as the sites of whistleblowers, activists, or political opponents? Censorship was supposed to be the ugly outcome of a failed net-neutrality. Fail alert!

This time period from 2008 through to 2012 had some interesting movements. The One you will find viral worthy is this video of Facebook Director of Public Policy Tim Sparapani.

For your discussions with relatives and young kids: See a long time ago, the only thing you couldn’t show was Breast feeding moms. Those were the days. Now breast feeding men is almost one of the ONLY things you can be seen to show.

Image from Motherly

Below is a discussion with Riz Kahn of Aljezeera about Facebook’s Privacy and Censorship policies 13 years ago. OH THE DISTANCE WE HAVE TRAVELLED. PLAY AND DOWNLOAD. This is a damning one and a keeper for all those in censorship and free speech cases. While the whole video is just content that you want to review, the censorship discussion is on Fire.

Big Brother Watch, Epic and Facebook discussion on privacy a decade ago is illuminating.

At minute 11:27 : Riz asks

“Will facebook censor something that they deem to be illegal in country x?”

Tim Sparapani of Facebook indicates

“In contrast to other companies, we are not at all engaging in censorship. Quite the opposite in fact. When there is a well respected law in statute that has been upheld by courts in a particular, that says certain content is inadmissible or should not be shared we will then will take it down when our users report it to us, but ONLY when our users report it to us. so we wait for our users to police the laws and customs of other counties.” no prereview by FB and want to maximize FREE SPEECH.

SO THE FORMULA IS

1. well respected law (that seems to exclude non well respected ones);

2. in a statute (so has passed legislative muster);

3. that has been upheld by the courts;

4. and our users have reported it

Then and only then FB will censor. They are a reluctant censor with only a massive pre-requisite before taking such a draconian step.

So FROM wait for a real list of onerous condition precedents to be met prior to censoring content (UNLESS it’s breastfeeding women),

TO

censoring all that an unelected unaccountable NGO with ties to the industry they support.

SO

essentially “blocking access to content they find objectionable, such as the sites of whistleblowers, activists, or political opponents.” Basically working with people they call ‘industry experts’ is sufficient. JUST WOW. The decide what is “authoritative” ie put it through the subjecto-meter. AND DONE.

By Aïda Ndiaye, Public Policy Manager FOR FACEBOOK

“Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic we have been working to connect people to accurate information and reduce misinformation on our platforms. Last month we announced the biggest worldwide campaign to promote authoritative information about Covid-19 vaccines. We are removing false vaccine claims, reducing distribution of inaccurate health information, and informing people about effective vaccine delivery.

Today we’re launching a new campaign in collaboration with the WHO and some of our European fact-checking partners called ‘Together Against Covid-19 Misinformation’. The campaign will roll out to people across the EU, UK, Norway and Iceland, as well as countries across the Middle East, Africa and Turkey, and will show up on Facebook through a series of graphics with tips on how to spot false news:

1. Check The Source: Scrutinise content, even if it appears science based

2. Check How It Makes You Feel: False news can manipulate feelings for clicks

3. Check The Context: Look to public health authorities to confirm content

We’re also launching a dedicated website in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Polish and Turkish, which will include information on how we’re tackling misinformation on our platforms. It will give people more transparency around our Remove, Reduce and Inform strategy, outline our community standards, and share the steps we’re taking to combat false news around global events such as Covid-19, elections and climate change.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, we’ll continue working with industry experts and people on our platforms to ensure we’re aggressively tackling misinformation, and give people additional resources to scrutinize content they see online, helping them decide what to read, trust and share.”

Tim on Facebook as a Privacy Policy Leader: so what about privacy from BIG BROTHER who will now score you. Talk about own something and shift it until it is the opposite.

The bit at the end in this video about customizing every single website. What is he talking about?

Now if there is anything more contrasting to privacy, and free speech it is Vigilant in the EU which is funded by European Union. Positively creepy with pyramids to boot.

VITAL INTELIGENCE TO INVESTIGATE ILLEGAL DISINFORMATION

“VIGILANT is an interdisciplinary effort by leading European researchers partnered with four European police authorities from Spain, Greeze, Estonia and Moldova to develop an integrated platform of disinformation detection and analysis tools from FP7 and H2020 projects. VIGILANT will provide PAs with the technical capabilities and institutional knowledge necessary to combat disinformation and other related harmful content while at the same time providing them with an understanding of the social drivers and behavioural dynamics behind the phenomena. The project also includes first-of-its-kind disinformation response and investigation training for police officers. Finally, the project includes setting up a specialist European network for Officers to share their experiences and knowledge and to promote a unified European approach to a problem that ignores borders. This multi-dimensional approach will increase citizen trust in digital information and infrastructure.”

This graphics video shows how exactly privacy and speech are methodically upended with the help of AI. Chilling for the EU to be pursuing. No?

https://twitter.com/GLOBSEC/status/1666806184442204163?s=20