Source: South Front

Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront; Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

The Big Profits Driving Online Censorship

This summer we have witnessed the increasing demand by mainstream media, Democratic Party legislators, and even former disgraced intelligence agency heads, for the silencing of dissenting viewpoints. Although the most recent wholesale ban on Alex Jones and Infowars on just about every social media platform out there is the most glaring and chilling example of outright censorship, the efforts of the Deep State to silence any voices of dissent or for presenting a narrative counter to that being peddled by the almost complete monopoly of social and mainstream media that serves them has been building in intensity for quite some time. The claims that the big tech companies that control all social media platforms through virtual monopoly are not required to meet the constitutional protections of the 1st amendment, because they are not governmental agencies, but private businesses, is patently false.

Immediately following the blanket ban on Alex Jones related accounts on social media platforms, a multitude of mass media writers and pundits appeared to argue why such a move was both vital and wholly legal. Perhaps a more reasonable opinion in this regard was presented in the Washington Examiner. In an opinion piece by Erin Dunne, published on August 6th, the author makes too basic assertions. Firstly, she argues correctly, that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment’s protection of speech. Secondly, she argues that private companies’ powers to regulate what speech is acceptable are not governed by the First Amendment. She succinctly states:

“Private companies, unlike government, are not beholden to court’s decisions on free speech. Facebook, Apple, and YouTube can all decide for themselves how to define hate speech and enforce that definition.

That makes sense. As private companies catering to users they have an obligation to shareholders to make a profit so they will pick a definition of hate speech that their users want and then enforce that.”

“For those who don’t like the chosen definition, there is also a simple solution: Don’t use those sites. This is how the market works. If you don’t like the terms of service then then there are other options (or soon will be). Companies want your business.

Unlike subscribing to the laws of the United States, the user agreements of social media companies are optional.”

Under most circumstances I would agree with Ms. Dunne’s second point, but the current case in question is quite different than any past case study in a private entity’s constitutional requirements where freedom of speech are concerned. Firstly, just a handful of big tech companies control virtually all social media platforms, effectively operating an illegal, anti-free market monopoly. This is not a normal, or even legal form of private business in the United States. Secondly, these companies are banning individuals and groups in coordination with one another and at the behest of special interests groups, including current federal government legislators, the mass media, and former federal intelligence agency officials. This “usual suspects” line-up, representing what is now acknowledged as the Deep State, even by the mainstream media outlets that serve as its propaganda operation, are basically contracting a private company to do what they are legally prevented from doing so themselves. So, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are working as independent contractors to conduct the type of censorship of the internet that the federal government would like to conduct through agencies such as the FCC or even the CIA and the NSA, but is legally prohibited from doing so.

Only six corporations own all print, radio and broadcast media in the United States. Keep in mind that Comcast is owned by General Electric. General Electric ranks number 31 out of the top 100 corporations with federal government contacts, including a $637 million contract awarded just last month for the repair, replacement and program support of engine components used on the F-18 platform aircraft.

Are these monolithic tech companies acting as “the beard” for the federal government? By working through Facebook and Google, the federal government has plausible deniability, and has removed itself from legal responsibility. This is only true, if one cannot connect the dots and establish a very clear ideological and economic relationship between these tech giants and the intelligence agencies of the federal government. As convenient a tool for communication and collaboration that social media platforms have become, we all have to recognize that they are an intrinsic component of the Deep State apparatus.

Google, the largest online search engine by far, which also owns YouTube, won its first federal government contract to provide Google apps and cloud services to the GSA in 2010. This contract, worth $6.7 million at the time, was just the first of many. They are currently in the running to provide cloud services (coined JEDI) to the Department of Defense worth an estimated $10 billion. Other service providers competing for the business, some of which already provide similar services for federal government agencies, include Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, CSRA, and IBM. Google had a contract to aid the Department of Defense in developing AI technology (Project Maven), but announced its intent not to continue the work after tens of thousands of engineers employed by the company signed a petition sighting the unethical nature of the work. This principled stance by rank and file employees (not company executives) is encouraging.

Please go to South Front to read the entire article.


Source: AIM

Let’s go deeper into patents stolen from Leader Technologies:

Military Cyber Warfighting




Facebook teams up with NATO to censor news (Video)


As a Facebook user, are you actually “partnering” with banks through Facebook, or are you partnering with intelligence agencies closely connected to banks, law firms and financial firms on Wall Street on the Facebook social media platform?

Facebook: We’re not asking for financial data, we’re just partnering with banks