How to Create a DIY Sticker Campaign

This is a simple how-to guide for creating a surprisingly effective sticker campaign on a limited budget. Before commencing, one might first ask “why a sticker campaign?”

A sticker of the right image in the right place is in essence a form of guerrilla marketing. While not as permanent as a graffiti stencil, it can still get a message across without damaging whatever objects or surfaces they happen to be placed on. Well-designed stickers can be viewed as a physical meme, which in internet culture has come to mean a combination of (usually humorous) images and words which transmit ideas. As social media monopolies continue to assert their power to censor any ideas which they, their corporate sponsors and government partners might disagree with, we need to be more creative about how to spread memes through society in a multitude of ways which can bypass censorship, contradict the mainstream consensus and have positive impacts.

As a user of mass transit, I began noticing small stickers on buses and bus stops along the routes I take featuring images mocking certain multinational corporations known to harm the community. The more I thought about the method and motives behind them, the more attractive the concept became. It’s a relatively low risk and low investment action that can have great results if even just a few with the right mindset see them and are nudged towards critical thoughts and actions. For example, I was moved to attempt to recreate the stickers, strategically place them in public spaces, and also share the method of producing them with the hope that others will do the same.

The first step is to choose an image. The meme content of your sticker is limited only by your imagination and the issues you wish to address.

Regardless of message, make sure it grabs attention and is still legible even if the sticker is small. I found that upping the contrast and converting images to black and white usually makes them more effective (and saves on color toner).

Next, acquire a box of Avery 5160 address stickers (or something similar) which can be purchased for a few bucks at thrift shops or found at most corporate workplaces.

Using Microsoft Word, click on “Tools” dropdown menu, then “Labels” and set it for “Avery standard, 5160” (or whatever type of label one happens to use).

Drag and drop image onto the Word label template so it looks something like this:

Print and trim with a paper cutter so all white portions are removed and each image is separated. This size of label and image creates 60 individual stickers per page. Granted, they’re pretty small so should ideally be placed in areas in which people come in close proximity to them such as on buses, bus stops, elevators, bathrooms, eye-level store shelves, etc. Smaller sizes have the advantage of making them easier to place more discretely however.

With bundles of strips of stickers in your pockets, have fun doing something admittedly immature but with the potential to support intelligent and worthy causes ๐Ÿ™‚

Facebookโ€™s New Propaganda Partners

By Alan Mcleod

Source: FAIR

Media giant Facebook recently announced (Reuters, 9/19/18) it would combat โ€œfake newsโ€ by partnering with two propaganda organizations founded and funded by the US government: the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The social media platform was already working closely with the NATO-sponsored Atlantic Council think tank (FAIR.org, 5/21/18).

In a previous FAIR article (8/22/18), I noted that the โ€œfake newsโ€ issue was being used as a pretext to attack the left and progressive news sites. Changes to Facebookโ€™s algorithm have reduced traffic significantly for progressive outlets like Common Dreams (5/3/18), while the pages of Venezuelan governmentโ€“backed TeleSur English and the independent Venezuelanalysis were shut down without warning, and only reinstated after a public outcry.

The Washington, DCโ€“based NDI and IRI are staffed with senior Democratic and Republican politicians; the NDI is chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while the late Sen. John McCain was the longtime IRI chair. Both groups were created in 1983 as arms of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Cold War enterprise backed by thenโ€“CIA director William Casey (Jacobin, 3/7/18). That these two US government creations, along with a NATO offshoot like the Atlantic Council, are used by Facebook to distinguish real from fake news is effectively state censorship.

Facebookโ€™s collaboration with the NED organizations is particularly troubling, as both have aggressively pursued regime change against leftist governments overseas. The NDI undermined the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, and continues to do so to this day, while the IRI claimed a key role in the 2002 coup against leftist President Hugo Chรกvez of Venezuela, announcing that it had

served as a bridge between the nationโ€™s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic futureโ€ฆ. We stand ready to continue our partnership with the courageous Venezuelan people.

The Reuters report (9/19/18) mentioned that Facebook was anxious to better curate what Brazilians saw on their feeds in the run-up to their presidential elections, which pits far-right Jair Bolsonaro against leftist Fernando Haddad. The US government has a long history of undermining democracy in Brazil, from supporting a coup in 1964 against the progressive Goulart administration to continually spying on leftist President Dilma Rousseff (BBC, 7/4/15) in the run-up to the parliamentary coup against her in 2016 (CounterSpin, 6/2/17).

Soon after it partnered with the Atlantic Council, Facebook moved to delete accounts and pages connected with Iranian broadcasting channels (CNBC, 8/23/18), while The Intercept (12/30/17) reported that in 2017 the social media platform met with Israeli government officials to discuss which Palestinian voices it should censor. Ninety-five percent of Israeli government requests for deletion were granted. Thus the US government and its allies are effectively using the platform to silence dissenting opinion, both at home and on the world stage, controlling what Facebookโ€˜s 2 billion users see and do not see.

Progressives should be deeply skeptical that these moves have anything to do with their stated objective of promoting democracy. Bloomberg Businessweek (9/29/17) reported that the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) party went to Facebook headquarters for discussions with US companies about how it could use the platform for recruitment and micro-targeting in the 2017 elections. AfD tripled its previous vote share, becoming the third-largest party in Germany, the far rightโ€™s best showing since World War II.

Public trust in government is at 18 percentโ€”an all-time low (Pew, 12/14/17). There is similar mistrust of Facebook, with only 20 percent of Americans agreeing social media sites do a good job separating fact from fiction. And yet, worldwide, Facebook is a crucial news source. Fifty-two percent of Brazilians, 61 percent of Mexicans, and 51 percent of Italians and Turks use the platform for news; 39 percent of the US gets their news from the site.

This means that, despite the fact that even its own public mistrusts it, the US government has effectively become the arbiter of what the world sees and hears, with the ability to marginalize or simply delete news from organizations or countries that do not share its opinions. This power could be used at sensitive times, like elections. This is not an idle threat. The US created an entire fake social network for Cubans that aimed to stir unrest and overthrow the Cuban government, according to the Guardian (4/3/14).

That a single corporation has such a monopoly over the flow of worldwide news is already problematic, but the increasing meshing of corporate and US government control over the means of communication is particularly worrying. All those who believe in free and open exchange of information should oppose Facebook becoming a tool of US foreign policy.

Trumpโ€™s new cyber strategy seeks global dominion over internet

Source: RT.com

Setting the global standard for online behavior, preserving American dominance, political and economic interests, punishing โ€˜malicious actorsโ€™ like Russia and China: these are the ambitious goals of the new US cyber-strategy.

The White House published the 40-page document on Thursday afternoon, the first comprehensive cyber strategy in 15 years. The strategyโ€™s core assumption is that the US created the internet and that Washington must maintain the dominant role in defining, shaping and policing cyberspace in much the same way as it does the globe.

All strategies are but broad outlines of general measures and overall objectives, and this one is no different. Beyond merely defending US computer networks – thatโ€™s just the first part, devoted to protecting the โ€œAmerican People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Lifeโ€ – it wants to promote US economic prosperity while advancing influence around the world and achieving โ€œpeace through strengthโ€ as well.

The Trump administrationโ€™s approach to cyberspace is โ€œanchored by enduring American values, such as the belief in the power of individual liberty, free expression, free markets, and privacy,โ€ the strategy says right at the start.

It also takes as an article of faith that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea use โ€œcyber tools to undermine our economy and democracy, steal our intellectual property, and sow discord in our democratic processes.โ€

Having signed on to this central assertion of Russiagate-peddlers, the Trump administration lays out the ways in which it intends to achieve its pie-in-the-(cyber)sky objectives.

โ€˜Securing US democracyโ€™

The Department of Homeland Security, a vast bureaucracy established after 9/11, is supposed to centralize management and oversight of federal computer networks, with the notable exceptions of those belonging to the Pentagon and the intelligence community. Reforms are supposed to make government networks more secure, reliable and efficient, while federal contracting will drive improvements in both products and services. This is the same process that has produced the F-35, a trillion-dollar clunker.

Those obsessed with seeing Russian hackers behind every voting machine might be interested in page nine, where the strategy proposes to โ€œsecure our democracyโ€ byโ€ฆ offering training and risk management to state and local governments โ€œwhen requested.โ€ Admittedly, there isnโ€™t much more the federal government can do to protect election systems, aside from securing the network infrastructure.

A particularly interesting tidbit here is also that law enforcement will โ€œwork with private industry to confront challenges presented by technological barriers, such as anonymization and encryption technologiesโ€ to obtain โ€œtime-sensitive evidence.โ€ This is basically a rehash of former FBI Director James Comeyโ€™s perpetual refrain about the need for backdoor access to encrypted products and services.

The most (in)famous example of this was when the FBI took Apple to court over accessing the San Bernardino terrorist suspectโ€™s iPhone, then hiring an Israeli company to crack the device, only to findโ€ฆ nothing of interest.

Privacy and civil rights advocates will be overjoyed to hear that Trump also wants to โ€œupdate electronic surveillance and computer crime statutesโ€ to make sure law enforcement can gather more evidence of cyber crimes and โ€œimpose appropriate consequences upon malicious cyber actors.โ€

โ€˜Promoting American prosperityโ€™

The second pillar talks a lot about the US government sponsoring innovation and creating jobs, but its key objective is to โ€œpromote the free flow of data across bordersโ€ (p.15). And if โ€œrepressive regimesโ€ use US-made cybersecurity tools to โ€œundermine human rights,โ€ Washington will expose and counter them.

No word on whether that will apply to Googleโ€™s work in China, or Twitter, YouTube and Facebookโ€™s throttling of speech that runs counter to their executivesโ€™ politics.

โ€˜Preserving peace through strengthโ€™

Pillar three is where things get offensive – literally. Its objective is to โ€œidentify, counter, disrupt, degrade, and deter behavior in cyberspace that is destabilizing and contrary to national interestsโ€ while preserving US โ€œovermatch.โ€

In addition to authorizing offensive cyber operations against suspected bad actors, the strategy proceeds from the assumption that the world craves US leadership, and envisions Washington promoting a โ€œframework of responsible state behavior in cyberspaceโ€ based on international law and โ€œvoluntary non-binding norms.โ€

A coalition of like-minded states, led by the US would โ€œcoordinate and support each otherโ€™s responses to significant malicious cyber incidents.โ€

How? Well, through intelligence sharing, but also โ€œbuttressing of attribution claims, public statements of support for responsive actions taken, and joint imposition of consequences against malign actors.โ€

If that sounds a bit like what happened after the UK accused Russia, without evidence, of using a chemical agent to poison ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, and the US and other allies just took Whitehallโ€™s word for itโ€ฆ thatโ€™s because it does.

โ€˜Advancing US influenceโ€™

That leads us to the fourth and final pillar, advancing US influence around the globe. Accusing China not only of wanting to create a closed, censored internet by exporting that model elsewhere, the strategy envisions US evangelizing for a โ€œfree and openโ€ internet.

Washington โ€œwill continue to work with like-minded countries, industry, civil society, and other stakeholders to advance human rights and Internet freedom globally and to counter authoritarian efforts to censor and influence Internet development,โ€ the strategy says.

Does that mean the State Department intends to challenge the new EU copyright rules that would effectively outlaw memes and charge a โ€œlink taxโ€? Somehow that seems highly… unlikely.

ThinkProgress Censored By Facebook After Cheerleading Facebook Censorship

By Caitlin Johnstone

Source: CaitlinJohnstone.com

Inย an article last monthย titled โ€œFacebook announces that fake accounts are now coming not just from Russiaโ€, fauxgressive establishment apologia firmย ThinkProgressย falsely reportedย that I have been writing for an outlet that is alleged to be part of an Iranian propaganda campaign. Iย repeatedlyย broughtย this false claim to the attention of Casey Michel, the articleโ€™s author, telling him that ten seconds of research or any attempt to contact me would have shown him that the articles published by the outlet in question were just reblogs of earlier publications from my platform, but Michel ignored the many notifications he received from myself and my Twitter followers and went on merrily interacting with other posters. As of this writing, the article remains uncorrected.

In the article, Michel documented Facebookโ€™s heroic efforts to shut down alleged Iranian propaganda outlets, ominously warning his readers that โ€œRussia is by no means the only foreign adversary exploiting social mediaโ€™s inherent openness.โ€ In other articles forย ThinkProgress, Michel isย repeatedlyย seenย wagging his fingerย at Facebook and Twitter for not doing more to censor โ€œRussian propagandaโ€, and inย a July articleย titled โ€œFacebook says both sides share fake news, defends Infowarsโ€™ presence on its platform โ€” Mark Zuckerberg has an interesting way of prioritizing โ€˜high quality news’โ€ anotherย ThinkProgressย author criticized Facebook for not censoring Alex Jones. Jones wasย censored by Facebook the following month.

So I think itโ€™s understandable that those of us who have beenย warningย of theย dangers of internet censorshipย find it a bit funny to seeย ThinkProgressย now complainingย that it has been censored by Facebook.

ThinkProgressย reportsย that its traffic from Facebook has been slashed by eighty percent due to a โ€œfact checkโ€ by theย Weekly Standardย which, through a series of moronic mental contortions, foundย ThinkProgressย guilty of reporting fake news about Brett Kavanaugh of all things. In a twist of irony which would be delicious if it werenโ€™t so disgusting, theย Weekly Standardย is one of Facebookโ€™s authorized โ€œfact checkersโ€, and happens to be the brainchild of none other than bloodthirsty psychopath and rehabilitated #Resistance hero Bill Kristol.

ThinkProgressย is part of a very large and diverse branch of progressive punditry whose ultimate job is to help centrist empire loyalists feel like leftist revolutionaries, and since 2016 one of the many appalling consequences of this bizarre environment has been the embracing of Iraq-raping neoconservatives like Kristol and Max Boot by Democratic Party loyalists. In a bid to stay relevant despite having been consistently wrong about literally everything in foreign policy for the last two decades, these murderous ghouls haveย repackaged themselvesย as a woke, cuddly alternative to the Trumpian faction of the Republican Party, and have been rewarded for their efforts with regular platforms on MSNBC and theย Washington Post.

So withย ThinkProgressย getting censored by Facebook, you really couldnโ€™t ask for a more clear-cut case of reaping what you sow. Nevertheless, it is wrong for anyone to be deprived of political speech, even if much of their political speech consists of attempts to silence the political speech of others. And if there is anything more gross than political speech being regulated by Silicon Valley plutocrats andย a NATO psyop factory, itโ€™s political speech being regulated byย Silicon Valley plutocrats,ย a NATO psyop factory, and Bill Kristol.ย ThinkProgressย should not have its audience restricted.

All the โ€œlet me help you cheer for the establishment while pretending to oppose itโ€ pundits who celebrated Alex Jonesโ€™ coordinated de-platforming last month are falling all over themselves to spin this new development in a way that allows them to feel as though they arenโ€™t being proven wrong day after day after day, but of course they are. Facilitating the censorship of anyoneโ€™s speech is facilitating the censorship of your own speech in the long run, and weโ€™re not even having to wait long to see it this time around. In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship; the massive new media corporations being implored to regulate which political speech gets an audience and which doesnโ€™t haveย extensive ties to secretive government agenciesand a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I do not expectย ThinkProgressย to remain on Facebookโ€™s restricted list for long; the real targets of internet censorship are not partisan outlets which prop up establishment politics and help legitimize Americaโ€™s two-headed one party system. But that isnโ€™t the point. The point is that Silicon Valley plutocrats, the NATO propaganda firm Atlantic Council, and theย Weekly Standardย should not be determining who gets an audience in the new media environment and who doesnโ€™t. Nothing that has anything to do with Bill Kristol should ever have any power over anyone. If our choices are between letting people think for themselves and letting the guy whoโ€™s always wrong about everything determine what shows up in peopleโ€™s news feed, the choice is obviously the one which doesnโ€™t involve placing faith in the man who helped deceive America into butchering a million Iraqis.

THE 10 PRIMARY DIRECTIVES OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Byย Sigmund Fraud

Source: Waking Times

The circus never stops, and no matter who criesย fake newsย against whom, the fact remains that we have entered the post-truth, post-credibility, post-sanity,ย post-free speechย world. While censorship is coming out into the open, the major corporate news organizations still have tremendous reach into the hollows of public consciousness, giving them power to direct and deflect public attention onto or away from whatever they choose.

The news industry parrots scripted narrativesย and talking points that are written for them by corporate, financial and political interests. This massive public relations and propaganda effort targets the intelligence, common sense and emotional stability of the body politic. Itโ€™s part of the endgame ofย order out of chaos.

Once you wake up to this game, though, itโ€™s easy to see the framework in which they operate, and when you do, the talking heads and recycled government experts are a joke, albeit a dangerous one. Their tactics become more and more obvious, and their intent is easy recognized for its duplicity, subterfuge and hypocrisy.

They want to cram your mind into well-crafted box. It doesnโ€™t matter if you end up in the right side or the left side of the box, as long as you donโ€™t leave and so long as you stay focused on the flickering lights of the flat screen, ignoring anything that is not directly in front of you.

Corporate media has become a weapon of war, and they follow a certain missive. Consider the following directives that drive nearly everything you seen in mainstream news.

1. Be Afraid, Not Empowered

2. Omit and Forget

3.ย Self-Destruction is Cool, Self-Awareness is a Crime

4. You are a Victim, The State is Your Savior

5. Overreact, Donโ€™t Over Think

6. Enrage Donโ€™t Engage

7.ย  Indulge, Donโ€™t Conserve

8. Stoke Conflict, Ridicule Peace

9. Permanent War is Normal and Expected

10.ย  Panic, Donโ€™t Prepare

Now that weโ€™ve entered the age of open government-backed corporate censorship of the internet, the mainstream media is actively seeking to shut down independent and dissident voices. In order to do so, they must engage in treachery of every form. If you believe that you have a right to the truth, a right to speak out, and a right to demand genuine peace and justice, then youโ€™d better be paying attention.

If you have any more to add to this list, please do so in the comments below.

Facebook Censorship, Mad Ben Nimmo and the Atlantic Council

By Craig Murray

Source: CraigMurray.org

Facebook has deleted all of my posts from July 2017 to last week because I am, apparently, a Russian Bot. For a while I could not add any new posts either, but we recently found a way around that, at least for now. To those of you tempted to say โ€œSo what?โ€, I would point out that over two thirds of visitors to my website arrive via my posting of the articles to Facebook and Twitter. Social media outlets like this blog, which offer an alternative to MSM propaganda, are hugely at the mercy of these corporate gatekeepers.

Facebookโ€™s plunge into censorship is completely open and admitted, as is the fact it is operated for Facebook by the Atlantic Council โ€“ the extreme neo-con group part funded by NATO and whose board includes serial war criminal Henry Kissinger, Former CIA Heads Michael Hayden and Michael Morrell, and George Bushโ€™s chief of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, among a whole list of horrors.

The staff are worse than the Board. Their lead expert on Russian bot detection is an obsessed nutter named Ben Nimmo, whose fragile grip on reality has been completely broken by his elevation to be the internetโ€™s Witchfinder-General. Nimmo, grandly titled โ€œSenior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Councilโ€™s Digital Forensic Research Labโ€, is the go-to man for Establishment rubbishing of citizen journalists, and as with Joseph McCarthy or Matthew Clarke, one day society will sufficiently recover its balance for it to be generally acknowledged that this kind of witch-hunt nonsense was not just an aberration, but a manifestation of the evil it claimed to fight.

There is no Establishment cause Nimmo will not aid by labeling its opponents as Bots. This from the Herald newspaper two days ago, where Nimmo uncovers the secret web of Scottish Nationalist bots that dominate the internet, and had the temerity to question the stitch-up of Alex Salmond.

Nimmoโ€™s proof? 2,000 people had used the hashtag #Dissolvetheunion on a total of 10,000 tweets in a week. Thatโ€™s five tweets per person on average. In a week. Obviously a massive bot-plot, eh?

When Benโ€™s great expose for the Herald was met with widespread ridicule, he doubled down on it by producing his evidence โ€“ a list of the top ten bots he had uncovered in this research. Except that they are almost all, to my certain knowledge, not bots but people. But do not decry Benโ€™s fantastic forensic skills, for which NATO and the CIA fund the Atlantic Council. Benโ€™s number one suspect was definitely a bot. He had got the evil kingpin. He had seen through its identity despite its cunning disguise. That disguise included its name, IsthisAB0T, and its profile, where it called itself a bot for retweets on Independence. Thank goodness for Ben Nimmo, or nobody would ever have seen through that evil, presumably Kremlin-hatched, plan.

No wonder the Atlantic Council advertise Nimmo and his team as โ€œDigital Sherlocksโ€

Nimmoโ€™s track record is simply appalling. In this report for the Atlantic Council website, he falsely identified British pensioner @Ian56789 as a โ€œRussian troll farmโ€, which led to Ian being named as such by the British government, and to perhaps the most surreal Sky News interview of all time. Perhaps still more remarkably, Nimmo searches for use of the phrase โ€œcui bono?โ€ in reference to the Skripal and fake Douma chemical weapons attacks. Nimmo characterises use of the phrase cui bono as evidence of pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin bots and trolls โ€“ he really does. Most people would think to consider cui bono indicates a smattering more commonsense than Nimmo himself displays.

It is at least obvious cui bono from Nimmoโ€™s witchfinding โ€“ the capacious, NATO and CIA stuffed pockets of Ben Nimmo himself. That Facebook allows this utterly discredited neo-conservative charlatan the run of its censorship operations needs, given Facebookโ€™s pivotal role in social media intercourse, to concern everybody. The freedom of the internet is under fundamental attack.

Censorship in America: The New Normal

By Stephen Lendman

Source: StephenLendman.org

Dark forces in America threaten speech, media, and academic freedoms.

Social media, Google, and other tech giants are complicit in a campaign to suppress content conflicting with the official narrative.

Whatโ€™s increasingly going on is the hallmark of totalitarian rule โ€“ controlling the message, eliminating what conflicts with it, notably on major geopolitical issues.

Losing the right of free expression endangers all others. When truth-telling and dissent are considered threats to national security, free and open societies no longer exist โ€“ the slippery slope where America and other Western societies are heading.

The following headlines should scare everyone:

NYT: โ€œFacebook Says It Removed Pages Related to โ€˜Inauthentic Behaviorโ€™ โ€

Washington Post: โ€œSprawling Iranian influence operation globalizes techโ€™s war on disinformationโ€

Wall Street Journal: โ€œFacebook Pulls Accounts Peddling Misinformation From Iran, Russiaโ€

CNN: โ€œFacebook takes down 652 pages after finding disinformation campaigns run from Iran and Russiaโ€

The UK owned and controlled BBC: โ€œFacebook and Twitter remove accounts linked to Russia and Iran campaignsโ€

Other Western major media had similar headlined reports. On Tuesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said hundreds of pages on its platform were removed for exhibiting signs of โ€œties to state-owned mediaโ€ โ€“ including โ€œactivities the US government (said are) linked to Russian military intelligenceโ€ and Iran.

Facebook deleted accounts based on information supplied by the CIA, US State and Treasury Departments, acting as an agent for the imperial state.

The same goes for Twitter, Google, YouTube, Microsoft, and other tech giants โ€“ in cahoots with Washington against the most fundamental of fundamental freedoms.

Facebook removed 652 pages. Twitter suspended 284 accounts for engaging in what it called โ€œcoordinated manipulationโ€ โ€“ code language for truth-telling dark forces in Washington want suppressed.

Google removed Google Plus and YouTube content โ€“ based on information supplied by the CIA-funded FireEye cybersecurity firm, Langley calling the company a โ€œcritical addition to our strategic investment portfolio for security technologies.โ€

According to Facebook, pages allegedly connected to Russia, Iran, and other US sanctioned countries are targeted for removal, claiming some seek to influence US midterm elections โ€“ providing no evidence proving any of the targeted pages were involved in illegal or improper activities.

FB allied with the Atlantic Council (AC) โ€“ a neocon infested enemy of world peace and stability think tank, promoting NATOโ€™s killing machine, Americaโ€™s military, industrial, security, major media complex, and Ziofascist Israel.

FB partnered with ACโ€™s imperial geopolitical agenda to censor material falsely called โ€œforeign interferenceโ€ โ€“ ACโ€™s Digital Forensic Research Lab involved in so-called โ€œfact-checking,โ€ code language for flagrant censorship.

The CIA-linked FireEye said so-called โ€œinauthentic behaviorโ€ targeted for removal includes โ€œanti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes, as well as support for specific US policies favorable to Iran, such as the US-Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA).โ€

In cahoots with dark forces in Washington, Microsoftโ€™s so-called Digital Crimes Unit shut down 84 websites it claimed were associated with Russian hackers โ€“ no evidence cited proving it.

Its Microsoft AccountGuard initiative offers free cybersecurity protection to US political candidates and campaign offices at the federal, state and local levels.

No evidence suggests any threats to Americaโ€™s political process exists โ€“ just invented ones to bash Russia.

The new normal in America and other Western societies considers anything conflicting with the official narrative on vital issues โ€œinauthentic behavior.โ€

Are these nations heading toward eliminating the right of free expression altogether- falsely claiming itโ€™s to protect national security?

It appears to be whatโ€™s going on in the West โ€“ the possible elimination of free and open societies already gravely threatened.

Facebook is Filtering Out News That Doesnโ€™t Bolster US Foreign Policy

Facebook has shed any pretense of neutrality in handling political information concerning the foreign affairs of the U.S. government.

By WT Whitney

Source: Mint Press News

Facebook has its admirers. Shareholders are enamored of its profits โ€“ย $15.9 billionย in 2017 โ€“ and hordes of the worldโ€™s population โ€“ 1.47 billion people โ€“ look at Facebook every day.ย  Individually on their Facebook pages they are communicating with, on average,ย 338ย so-called โ€œfriends.โ€ Editors, the media, and political commentators are similarly entranced. One unpretentious website receiving the present writerโ€™s contributions claimsย 89,834ย Facebook friends and another,ย 125,060ย of them.

But now anyone dealing with political news and analyses of a progressive nature has reason to re-evaluate, even to draw back. Facebook apparently is now primed to censor that kind of information and discussion.

Facebook, for example, has its sights on Venezuela. ย Revolutionary currents there have rankled the U.S. government and dominant U.S. media. The latter has frequently referred to the failed violent anti-government coup of August 4 as anย โ€œapparentโ€ or โ€œallegedโ€ย coup while identifying it as a future pretext for repression by Venezuelaโ€™s government.

Venezuelanalysis.com, almost alone, has provided English-language news and views thatย โ€œchallengeย the corporate mainstream media narrative on Venezuelaโ€ Recently that platform has reported on โ€œthe growing international campaign to End US and Canadian Sanctions against Venezuela.โ€ On August 9 Facebook removed the websiteโ€™s account from its rolls; it was restored two days later. There were no explanations.

In 2005, the government of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, vilified by the U.S. government, took the lead in forming TeleSUR news service which has provided information onย resistance and integration movements throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. TeleSURโ€™s English-language page briefly disappeared from Facebook in January, 2018 and again on August 13 โ€“ for two days on that occasion.

These disruptions of two Facebook accounts are, by themselves, of no great moment.ย  But in Facebookโ€™s hands, the flow of English-language political information on Latin America now seems generally precarious, the more so when it deviates from U.S. official doctrine.

At a press briefing July 31, Facebookโ€™s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, indicated that โ€œ32 pagesย and accounts from Facebook and Instagramโ€ had been removed because they โ€œinvolve and coordinate inauthentic behavior.โ€ TeleSUR English and the Venezuelanalysis may have been among the offenders.

The social media giant on May 17 announced that, โ€œWeโ€™re doubling the numberย of people who work on safety and security and using technology like artificial intelligence to more effectively block fake accounts. [Additionally] weโ€™re more actively working with outside experts, governments and other companies because we know that we canโ€™t solve these challenges on our own โ€ฆ Today, weโ€™re excited to launch a new partnership with the Atlantic Council.โ€

The new alliance bolsters suspicions that Facebook has shed any pretense of neutrality in handling political information concerning the foreign affairs of the U.S. government.

The context is a Facebook damage-control mission undertaken presumably to shore up profitability.ย  The social media giant cameย under criticismย in Washington for allowing private information to fall into the hands of Cambridge Analytica. That British firm used it to provide data to Donald Trumpโ€™s 2016 presidential campaign viewed as injurious to contender Hillary Clinton.

Testifying April 10 before the Senate commerce and judiciary committees, Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg declared, โ€œIt wasย my mistake.โ€ย He apologized for Facebookโ€™s tolerance of โ€œfake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech.โ€ The office of influential Republican Sen. Mark Warner in July issued a draft white paper titled, in part, โ€œProposals for Regulationย of Social Media.โ€

Facebook outlined a plan to โ€œoutsource manyย of the most sensitive political decisionsโ€ and henceforth to rely upon the Atlantic Council and its Digital Forensic Research Lab. Accordingย to Reuters,ย the Lab uses โ€œits own software and other tools [and] sorts through social media postings for patterns.โ€ Facebookโ€™s recent donation to the Lab, Reuters said, was substantial enough, โ€œto vault the company to the top of the Atlantic Councilโ€™s donor list, alongside the British government.โ€

The Washington-based Atlantic Council, founded in 1961, takes in $21million in revenue annually. By means of โ€œgalvanizing its uniquely influential network of global leaders,โ€ the Council claims to foster โ€œcoยญopยญerยญaยญtion beยญtweenย North Amerยญica and Europe that beยญgan afยญter World War II.โ€ Drawing together โ€œpolitical leaders, academics, military officials, journalists and diplomats in an effort to further the values set forth in the North Atlantic Treaty,โ€ the Council is supposedlyย  a โ€œnetwork facilitatorโ€ that, according to the New York Times, offers โ€œaccess to United Statesย and foreign government officials in exchange for contributions.โ€

Contributors includeย NATO member governments, defense contractors, oil companies, aerospace companies, U.S. military services, the State Department, and multiple banks and fiยญnanยญcial orยญgaยญniยญzaยญtions. High U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials, both retired and on their way to top jobs, serve the Atlantic Council as leaders.

Forย one critic, the Council is โ€œa leading geopolitical strategy think-tank seen as a de facto PR agency for the U.S. government and NATO military alliance.โ€ Another, writing for alternet.org, is blunt: journalist Max Blumenthal characterizes the Council โ€œasย a pro-regime change think tankย that is funded by Western governments and their allies.โ€

The Atlantic Council is most certainly aligned with the objectives of U.S foreign policies. Now Facebook is using the Council as authenticator-in-chief of international news and views flowing through its portals. ย On both accounts, therefore, Facebook may have already lost any claim to promoting the free flow of political information.