iSmartNetwork Magazine The online magazine for you…
The documentary “Plandemic” by Mikki Willis has raised the bet on internet censorship to a whole new level. Across the board, the cinema has been banned from social media platforms and obscured by Google. If you do an online search for it, all you find are dozens of pages with sections calling it a hoax, cases of fraud or the dreaded old-time “conspiracy theory.”
The film features Judy Mikovits, Ph.D ., a cellular and molecular biologist1 whose experiment showed that many vaccines are infected with gammaretroviruses, thanks to the fact that they use viruses grown in infected animal cell paths.
A May 27, 2020, article2 in The Jewish Voice, which carries the telling headline, “Washington Post Journalist Advocates Censorship of Controversial Dr. Judy Mikovits Film, as Stunning Censorship Grips World, ” tones 😛 TAGEND
“When The Jewish Voice posted the 20 time preview of Dr. Judy Mikovitz’ documentary’ Plandemic’ our website literally crashed for 24 hours straight due to big traffic … The movie is about inoculations and pandemics and her views on Bill Gates and others. Is the 20 -minute preview controversial, perfectly — is this material dangerous? Absolutely not.
It’s frightening enough that YouTube and just about every other social media platform, insisted on ban a 20 -minute preview of an unreleased documentary, but we are at a point where actual journalists are advocating for censorship. Writers basically live by the values of the First Amendment …
In an clause reporting on the take-down of the video, The Washington Post’s Silicon Valley Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin complained that after the coronavirus film Plandemic was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access “banned footage” from the documentary via Google Drive …
This gets even more incredible. The’ journalist’ then brags that The Washington Post contacted Google and Google Drive took down a record featuring the trailer for the’ Plandemic’ documentary.
In other terms, the Washington Post has a novelist working for them that is so vehemently anti-free speech, she contacted Google and now reports are circulating that people’s personal copies of the video are vanishing from their Google Drives! …
We are entering a terrifying brand-new age, a world-wide where censorship is common and legal guardians of free speech — reporters, are standing up for … censorship! ”
Google Drive Removes Private Content
Indeed, it appears Google Drive has removed downloaded copies of the cinema from users’ personal records at the request of The Washington Post. 3 According to Reclaim the Net, Google Drive has also been caught stymie access to a hydroxychloroquine study: 4
“For many Google Drive customers, the service is their only file storage answer and they use it to save copies of videos and posts that have been deleted or censored on other platforms.
If this precedent continues, it could mean these consumers have their only facsimile of the information contained that has been scrubbed from social media platforms taken down because they shared a link to those files with other people.
According to Google Drive’s policies, dispensing what Google deems to be’ misleading content related to civic and democratic processes, ’’ misleading content relevant to harmful health practices, ’’ manipulated media’ is prohibited with possible exceptions when the content is used in an’ educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context.’”
The question is, who decides what content is misinforming or what health rules are harmful? Unequivocal scientific consensus is hard to find , no matter what we’re talking about. As long as “were having” scientists looking into things, the science on any specific topic will never be fully settled.
Hence, scaping contravene slants and differing scientific findings is likely to be virtually impossible. If we shut down slants( especially by scientists) that veer from the status quo of the working day, science will simply cease to exist.
It is increasingly becoming pointless, if it isn’t already. We’ll have to settle for the personal opinions of our presidents, be they elected or unelected, like Bill Gates. It’s hard to see that in this 21 st century, we’re on a fast-track into a brand-new intellectual Dark Age.
Epidemiologist Censored for Countering Lockdown Narrative
Mikovits is by no means the only voice being censored these days. Another lesson is that of Knut Wittkowski, Ph.D ., DSc, an epidemiologist and former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, of all places.
His video, in which he challenges the wisdom of lockdown orders, was removed by YouTube for “violating community standards” after garnering nearly 1.5 million views.
When asked why he supposed “there is so much pushback” to his line of reasoning, he replied, 5 “Because I think so many people have endowed so much of their ego and so they have a question acknowledging that maybe it was a little bit too much.” A YouTube spokesman protected the company’s activities, saying: 6
“We rapidly remove pennant content that contravenes our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly quarrels the efficacy of world or local health power recommended steering on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance. We are devoted to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.”
YouTube Censors on Behalf of the WHO
Indeed, YouTube’s CEO has gone on record saying they will censor anyone speaking against the World Health Organization. This despite the fact that WHO has been severely criticized for its handled in other pandemics, in particular the 2009 swine flu pandemic. 7
In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly( PACE) concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization( WHO ), EU health agencies and national governments led to a’ trash of big sums of public money, and unjustified scares and horrors about the health risks faced by the European public.’”8
Specifically, PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO, ” and that the medication industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making. 9 There is no doubt we’re watching the same thing happening now, as we’re all told we cannot go back to normal life until or unless we get a vaccine and inoculate the whole world.
There’s no guarantee that WHO is stimulating correct, unbiased decisions. In fact, the evidence presented degrees in the opposite direction, having regard to the influence Bill Gates wields over “the organizations activities”.
This is precisely why one must not silence experts who challenge the narrative and point out flaws in any devoted scheme. This is particularly true right now, as the current situation is unprecedented and health authorities are building up steering as they start.
Even the CDC and WHO are issuing conflicting recommendations on certain aspects of the pandemic response, such as whether people should1 0 or should not1 1 wear a mask.
YouTube Deletes Criticism of Chinese Communist Party
YouTube’s censorship are even more questionable when you consider it was caught automatically deleting notes insulting the Chinese Communist Party. Only in this case, YouTube claims the censorship was due to “an error in our enforcement systems.”1 2 No rationale was given as to how such an error might have arisen. However, as reported by The Verge: 13
“ … if the deletions are the result of a simple mistake, then it’s one that’s gone unnoticed for six months. The Verge found evidence that notes were being deleted as early as October 2019, when the issue was raised on YouTube’s official help pages and multiple customers confirmed that they had suffered the same problem.
Comments left under videos or in live rivers that contain the words “Gong Fei ” (‘ communist bandit’) or “Wu Mao ” (‘ 50 -cent party’) are automatically deleted in around 15 seconds, though their English language translations and Romanized Pinyin equivalents are not.
The term’ Gong Fei ’ is an insult that dates back to China’s Nationalist government, while’ Wu Mao, ’( or’ wu mao’) is a derogatory slang term for internet users paid to direct online discussion away from criticism of the CCP. The name comes from claims that such commenters are paid 50 Chinese cents per post.”
This certainly would not be the first time YouTube has catered to the Chinese government’s lust for censorship. They even developed a prototype search engine for China, known as Project Dragonfly, that would is appropriate Chinese country censorship. Criticism from American policy makers and its own employees led to YouTube scrubbing development projects. 14
Twitter Falsely Labels All Mercola Links as Unsafe
As discussed in “Shocking Proof How Google Censors Health News, ” mid-2 019, Google started going to great lengths burying Mercola.com in its search results. Since then, I’ve made a firewall that prevents Google bots from indexing my pages wholly. That doesn’t mean Big Tech and their friends have washed their hands of me.
Twitter now falsely labels any and all Mercola article connects as unsafe and malicious, telling potential readers my site might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer — a tactic that reduces ideas by about 95%. This is perfectly false. On the contrary, my locate is now set up to protect all readers from Google’s intrusive data mining.
Twitter now falsely labels any and all Mercola article relates as unsafe and malicious, telling potential readers my area might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer — a tactic that lessens sentiments by about 95%. This is perfectly false. On the contrary, my area is now set up to protect all readers from Google’s intrusive data mining.
All of these examples are part of Silicon Valley’s surveillance capitalism apparatus. It’s all about controlling entire populations and shaping public opinion to benefit certain corporations, industries and/ or political parties. And it’s shockingly effective. Google’s search algorithms alone have the power to shift 15 million referendums leading up to the 2020 general elections, according to estimates — all without leaving a paper trail.
You can learn more about this in “Google — A Dictator Unlike Anything the World Has Ever Known, ” in which I interview Robert Epstein, Ph.D ., a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped uncover Google’s manipulative and deceptive practises.
White House Seeks to Defend Free Speech
May 28, 2020, merely two days after Twitter added a fact-check to one of President Trump’s tweets about mail-in votes being a vehicle for election fraud, calling the post “potentially misleading, ” the President signed an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship1 5 requiring the Federal Communications Commission to clarify regulations under Segment 23016 of the Communications Decency Act.
Within 60 days, the Secretary of Commerce, “in consultation with the Attorney general, and behaving through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration( NTIA ), ” are required to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC, and the FCC is asked to act “expeditiously” in presenting legal regulations.
According to Trump, the executive ordering is intended to “defend free speech from one of the gravest hazards it has faced in American history.” He added: 17
“A small-minded handful of social media monopolies controls a immense segment of all public and private communications in the United Commonwealth. They’ve had unchecked strength to censor, limit, edit, shape, disguise, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and huge public audiences …
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the lecture that Americans may access and impart on the internet.
This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When big, powerful social media corporations censor beliefs with which they contradict, they exert a dangerous power.”
Social Media Giants May Lose Section 230 Protection
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what, still further, has allowed social media platforms to pick and choose what they allow on their site while still being afforded legal protections.
In simple terms, if you’re an internet service provider, you’re not liable for what users are posting on your platform, but you still have the right to block harmful content( such as pornography) provided it’s done in good faith. If you’re a publisher, on the other hand, you can be held legally responsible for the content you post, and therefore have free reign over the viewpoints you will or will not let.
Social media monsters like Twitter and Facebook have long asserted that they are internet service providers, and therefore not liable for content. Yet they systematically censor merely certain points of view, which is the complete opposite of what Part 230 sought to achieve. As noted in the executive order: 18
“Section 230( c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a’ publisher’ of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.
As the title of part 230( c) makes clear, these appropriations renders limited liability’ protection’ to a supplier of an interactive computer service( such as an online platform) that engages in’ ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking’ of harmful content.
In particular, the Congress sought to provide shields for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful substance.
The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a’ meeting for a true diversity of political discourse’ … The limited defences provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph( c )( 2) expressly addresses shields from’ civil liability’ and is an indication that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable’ on account of’ its decision in’ good faith’ to restrict access to content that it considers to be’ pornographic, lewd, lascivious, filthy, too violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.’
It is the policy of the United Commonwealth to rest assured that, to the fullest extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from are active in’ good faith’ to remove objectionable content — instead are also involved in fraudulent or pretextual activities( often contrary to their stated words of service) to suffocate standpoints with which they disagree.
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open meetings for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket exemption when they use their power to censor content and silence slants that they dislike.
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its activities do not encounter the criteria of subparagraph( c )( 2 )( A ), it is engaged in editorial conduct.
It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph( c )( 2 )( A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.”
We’ll have to patiently wait to see what the FCC comes up with over the next few months, but it seems clear Segment 230 is now doing far more harm than good. Far from protecting free speech, it’s being used as a liability shield for Big Tech monopolies seeking to establish some sort of dictatorship where merely one point of view is allowed to exist, and all others are mercilessly quelled or deleted wholly.
We simply cannot achieve good health, let alone democracy, without uncensored free lecture and the right and ability to access different points of view equally.
Read more: articles.mercola.com
