Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Big Brother / Microchipping / Problem-Reaction-Solution

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2018, 10:52 PM   #441
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

YouTube censorship RAMPAGE running amok as all the GOOD people keep getting terminated
Thursday, May 10, 2018 by: Vicki Batts

YouTube’s mass censorship is still underway, as more conservatives, libertarians and anyone else who stands in the way of the leftist cult from pushing their propaganda are having their channels taken down left and right. YouTube’s unceremonious account terminations seem to be yielding two responses: Horror, from those who understand that this behavior is disgustingly authoritarian — and applause from the useful idiots who erroneously believe that it’s okay to silence dissenting opinions, as long as it fits their political agenda.

In a war of ideals that seemingly comes straight out of 1984, the “Ministry of Truth” is tearing down anyone who dares to disagree with their left-wing dogma — claiming that these accounts are “violating” YouTube’s policies by spreading “misinformation,” among other ridiculous claims. Apparently, telling the truth and advocating for freedom is now “misinformation,” under the leftist scheme to quash their opposition. Many good people have been silenced under the iron curtain of YouTube’s “moderation” efforts.
We’ve seen it before

As George Orwell wrote, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.”

That is where we are headed, if corporations like YouTube are allowed to continue their role as acting thought police. Fortunately, there are alternatives to YouTube available, like Real.Video. But the greater problem of YouTube and other social media giants engaging in acts of mass censorship still exists. As SGT Report contends, this is “blatant corporate fascism” at its ugliest, and it simply cannot be ignored any longer.

Earlier in 2018, independent journalist Mike Cernovich revealed that YouTube had taken down his video footage of violent Antifa activists. At the time, Cernovich commented, “YouTube is censoring honest, unedited reporting about ANTIFA’s actions. This can mean only one thing — they endorse far left wing violence.”

Censorship of conservative voices has been going on for a long time. The demonetization and flagging of right-leaning accounts were just the beginning — now we are seeing accounts being terminated without warning or provocation. Even liberals aren’t safe, as Carl Benjamin, also known by his online moniker “Sargon of Akkad,” will tell you. Benjamin, a classical liberal, was locked out of his Google account, and subsequently his YouTube channel. Google, which owns YouTube, gave him a message which said it “looked like it was being used in a way that violates Google’s policies.”

They didn’t even try to pretend that they had proof he violated their terms, they just “suppose” he might have a violation. Benjamin noted at the time that his account had “zero strikes.” He reportedly told Breitbart, “the entire company is riddled with a far-left ideological orthodoxy that has taken hold to a radical degree.”

And, as you might expect, the left-wing media is all but cheering them on. A recent Buzzfeed article described the kinds of content being censored by YouTube as videos that were promoting “hate speech” and “unsafe” content. Seriously?
Who knew living naturally was so controversial?

Apparently the Health Ranger’s video feed, predominantly featuring videos about nutrition, gardening, natural medicine and the like, is “hate speech”to liberals. Newsflash: Just because someone posts something you don’t like or don’t agree with, doesn’t mean you can silence them — not as long as this is still America.

Leftist cult members are using terms like “hate speech,” “fascism,” “white supremacy” and other “four-letter words” to suppress divergent thought. These words, which once had real meaning, have been co-opted by the Left to serve their agenda. They are not fighting against fascism — they are creating it.

Censorship is only the tip of the iceberg, and the manipulation of language (and subsequently, thought) is already underway. What will come next in this vicious circle of suppression and tyranny?
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-...ning-amok.html
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
Likes: (1)
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2018, 04:08 PM   #442
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

The Death Of Free Speech: Twitter Ramps Up CENSORSHIP Of ‘Hate Facts’
Mac Slavo
May 10th, 2018
SHTFplan.com

Twitter is banning conservatives and others who don’t subscribe to the leftist mentality plaguing social media. Using the excuse that people are posting “hate facts,” the social media outlet is just shutting down accounts that post any truth that doesn’t fare well for the liberal agenda.

By now, it should be well understood that the terms “hate facts” and “hate speech” are nothing more than buzzwords used by the left as an excuse to suppress the speech of those with which they disagree. This is becoming more and more apparent as we devolve quickly toward a fully totalitarian system too.

Breitbart reported that the most high-profile individual to be banned on this basis was Islam critic Tommy Robinson, who received a permanent ban from Twitter after he posted statistics showing that Muslims are vastly overrepresented in child grooming gangs in the U.K. Robinson is now taking Twitter to court to prove that “facts are now treated as hate.”

The censorship of British accounts, including those of the Britain First team, is tied to increasing pressure from European governments for social media platforms to censor their users. Robinson claims that 10,000 Twitter accounts have been closed at the request of the U.K. government over alleged “hate.”
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...facts_05102018
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2018, 09:48 PM   #443
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

Diversion ahead – directing the flow of internet traffic away from free speech
Andrew Cheetham
6 hours ago

By Regicide

Free Speech is a value enshrined in constitutions across the world, especially in western cultures. It’s a value that helps demonstrate and keep societies faith in freedom and fairness within the written and even unwritten contract between people and governance. While the right to express opinion freely has existed for some time, the power of free speech can still be regulated through the platforms that deliver it.

With such openly endorsed rights, it is near impossible for any entity to attempt to supress free speech without risking immediate mass criticism and long-term risk to the ongoing contractual accord. However, there is nothing within those rights that prevent government or establishment from influencing or controlling how free opinion reaches audiences. Social engagement, open air theatre and the written word have been the longest existing platforms for the distribution of free expression. There is little anyone can lawfully do to stop you expressing your views at Speakers Corner for example, or handing out leaflets. However, this limits the size of the audience you can hope to reach and therefore any influence your views may have.

Over time, modern day society has enjoyed an expanded range of media platforms, including radio, television, film, theatre, books, newspapers and magazines. They provide access to huge audiences and can influence entire public opinion. However media is not transparent, but translucent. It does not provide an unfettered, unobstructed window to the world. Media is edited. It is not easy or simple to express free speech via the main channels available today. Each channel, and the information that passes through them, is carefully regulated by editors and producers. Many have social or political biases and act as gateways, carefully selecting what information should or should not be expressed to the audience. Stories and articles can be published or dropped, screenplays can be rewritten and adjusted and songs can be promoted or dumped.

This process of editorial control has provided government and establishment with influence over the sluice gates of free speech and information, ensuring some ability to influence and manipulate the flow of free expression. This provides the assurance that information can be controlled without being seen to directly supress it. However, enter the new age of the internet.

The emergence of the internet has presented both significant risk and opportunity to the state in terms of controlling access to free views. The World Wide Web allows anyone to publish any content they like, openly, unedited and unfettered, expressing any opinion. Not only that, such content can be freely accessed by huge audiences, 24/7. While the government and establishment can exercise some control over content that breached laws, they are faced with the uncomfortable truth that a new platform has emerged that could allow anyone to express opinion on anything to everyone at any time, without the ability to regulate through editing.

So the exam question is set, how can the flow of free speech be regulated on the internet without breaching constitutional rights and undermining faith in governance? The answer did not lay in attempting to control editing or production of websites and the material they publish directly, but in influencing and directing internet traffic itself. Originally, the internet provided parity in access to potentially millions of websites, and in essence it still does. The key is influencing the public to voluntarily only choose to access a narrow range of sites where it becomes easier to regulate the information. To demonstrate how this works, let’s use Facebook as an example.

Facebook has become one of the top performers in attracting a huge global audience and dominating online traffic. Ex-Facebook President Sean Parker once stated that Facebook and similar applications are designed to consume as much of your (online) time as possible. Facebook did not pioneer social media, there have been predecessors. But a seemingly bottomless pit of financial investment and promotion has seen it rapidly rise to become one of the top three most visited sites globally. Does Facebook therefore provide the opportunity for the regulation of free information? According to governments and establishments the promotion and distribution of material and information can most certainly be manipulated. For example, accusations of manipulation of election results by foreign entities through influencing public opinion via social media has been publically distressed by authorities.

Facebook is also one of the main channels for identity politics. Former vice-president of Facebook Chamath Palihapitiya openly confided that Facebook does indeed allow the programming of its user’s behaviours and opinions. What’s more, this type of regulation of information and behaviour is often perceived as being conducted by other users themselves. In essence, on the surface the appearance is that the public is policing itself. Therefore, seemingly unaffiliated, impartial and independent social media platforms do have the ability to provide editorial and regulatory powers by influencing and manipulating the news feeds that appear on a user’s account. What is currently called social media, could now be referred to as political media.

Facebook is not alone, before the rise of other social media giants such as Twitter and Instagram, there existed a plethora of alternatives vying for your time. Myspace and Friends Reunited are examples of previous incarnations. However through acquisitioned most were consumed until the top ten are owned by the same two or three giants. Facebook owns Instagram and Whatsapp, Google owns Youtube. This is an important consideration, as statistics show that internet traffic is dominated by just a handful of websites and applications. That handful are owned by an even smaller number of parent companies. In essence, the vast majority of typical and everyday traffic has been funnelled down to accessing just a few big news, retail and social media giants. These are the channels that provide access to the big audiences on the internet today. These are the channels that are becoming increasingly regulated and edited by those that influence and even control the parent companies.

By heavily investing, supporting and controlling the rise in popularity of a handful of channels that now dominate the direction of internet traffic, the ability to regulate how free speech is accessed through the World Wide Web has become within reach. Yes, you can still publish whatever lawful opinion you want, and there is nothing directly stopping your audience from accessing it. But in reality that audience is spending most of its online time on just a handful of channels that can regulate and manipulate their exposure to your expressions of opinion. By borrowing the same techniques used in the traditional media channels, a pseudo editorial framework is in place that allows regulation not of free speech online, but your access and exposure to it.
https://www.davidicke.com/article/47...ay-free-speech
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2018, 05:36 PM   #444
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

US State Passes Law Defining Any Criticism of Israel as ‘Anti-Semitic’ Just As They Kill 60 Civilians
As many Americans criticize the number of civilian deaths on the Gaza Strip, a state has passed a measure labeling criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism."
By Rachel Blevins -
May 16, 2018

The news that Israel killed more than 60 Palestinians on Monday alone, has sparked criticism from Americans who are frustrated with the United States’ failure to hold one of its closest allies accountable for the human rights violations it is committing—and individuals in one state will soon be labeled as “anti-Semitic” for openly voicing their opinion.

South Carolina will become the first state to legally define criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitism” when a new measure goes into effect on July 1, targeting public schools and universities. While politicians have tried to pass the measure as a standalone law for two years, they finally succeeded temporarily by passing it as a “proviso” that was slipped into the 2018-2019 budget.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/is...-anti-semitic/
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of

Last edited by iamawaveofthesea; 17-05-2018 at 05:36 PM.
Likes: (1)
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 06:07 PM   #445
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

YouTube begins banning video channels for talking about CBD oil; claims CBD oil “poses risk of serious physical harm or death”
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 by: Mike Adams

Jumping in bed with Big Pharma and the corrupt cancer industry, YouTube has begun banning entire video channels that post videos describing the compassionate use of CBD oil in cancer patients.

In addition to re-banning the Health Ranger video channel over a video that called for racial unity and peace in our world (see below), YouTube has now permanently banned the “Natural News” channel, claiming a 43-second video we posted about the compassionate healing potential of CBD oil was subjecting viewers to “risk of serious physical harm or death.” Rather than allowing the issuance of three strikes before banning a channel, YouTube permanently banned our channel with a single strike (see screen shots below).

This isn’t a typo: YouTube now considers videos that talk about natural medicine and saving lives from cancer to be “harmful” and “dangerous.” Really. That’s what YouTube has now become: an enemy of natural medicine and healing.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-...k-of-harm.html
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
Likes: (1)
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 06:13 PM   #446
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,808
Likes: 4,203 (2,337 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
YouTube begins banning video channels for talking about CBD oil; claims CBD oil “poses risk of serious physical harm or death”
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 by: Mike Adams

Jumping in bed with Big Pharma and the corrupt cancer industry, YouTube has begun banning entire video channels that post videos describing the compassionate use of CBD oil in cancer patients.

In addition to re-banning the Health Ranger video channel over a video that called for racial unity and peace in our world (see below), YouTube has now permanently banned the “Natural News” channel, claiming a 43-second video we posted about the compassionate healing potential of CBD oil was subjecting viewers to “risk of serious physical harm or death.” Rather than allowing the issuance of three strikes before banning a channel, YouTube permanently banned our channel with a single strike (see screen shots below).

This isn’t a typo: YouTube now considers videos that talk about natural medicine and saving lives from cancer to be “harmful” and “dangerous.” Really. That’s what YouTube has now become: an enemy of natural medicine and healing.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-...k-of-harm.html
They own it and they will use it to their advantage.
They want to maintain control of the sheoples minds, and more people watch joutube than any tv channels
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
Likes: (1)
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2018, 06:27 PM   #447
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

Six Years in Prison for Posting on Social Media

__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2018, 06:30 PM   #448
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

New laws to tackle 'wild west' internet will make UK 'safest place in the world' to be online, Matt Hancock claims
Social media firms face billions in fines if they do not comply, warns government

Chris Baynes
6 hours ago

New laws will be introduced aimed at tackling the internet “wild west” and making Britain the “safest place in the world” to be online, the culture secretary has said.

The largest social media companies could be fined billions of pounds if they do not take steps to protect users, Matt Hancock warned.

A new code of practice to tackle online bullying, stricter age verification requirements, and a regular internet safety transparency report to keep tabs on online abuse could also be included in new legislation.

Measures to tackle online harm could be funded through an industry-wide levy on firms such Facebook and Twitter.

It is understood the levy, first proposed by the government last year, will be subject to a further round of consultation with the sector and charities before a final decision is made.

Mr Hancock said work with social media companies to protect users had led to some positive steps being taken but the performance of the industry overall had been mixed.

Only four of the 14 largest social media firms invited to discuss the issue at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) turned up, he told The Andrew Marr Show.

The culture secretary said the snub had given him “a big impetus to drive this proposal to legislate through” because it showed the government does not have the power it needs.

“Before then, and until now, there has been this argument [that you should] work with the companies, do it on a voluntary basis, they’ll do more that way because the lawyers won’t be involved,” he told presenter Emma Barnett.

Launching a consultation on what measures should be used, Mr Hancock said: “Digital technology is overwhelmingly a force for good across the world and we must always champion innovation and change for the better.

“At the same time I have been clear that we have to address the wild west elements of the internet through legislation, in a way that supports innovation. We strongly support technology companies to start up and grow, and we want to work with them to keep our citizens safe.

“People increasingly live their lives through online platforms so it’s more important than ever that people are safe and parents can have confidence they can keep their children from harm.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8360081.html
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2018, 08:17 PM   #449
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
Likes: (1)
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 07:58 PM   #450
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,583 (7,194 Posts)
Default

anyone familiar with george orwells work will always ask when they hear the word 'terrorist' being bandied around by politicians who decides what a terrorist is?

for example if the globalist NWO gang are in charge then they would call anyone who disagrees with the dissolution of national sovereignty a 'terrorist'

doesn't mean they are a terrorist but it allows the globalists to persecute them under the letter of the law

New 'three strikes' law aims to close legal loophole allowing people to stream extremist material

Published time: 6 Jun, 2018 11:09

Legislation designed to stop people in the UK from viewing extremist content online will be introduced in a counter-terrorism bill within days.

The “three strikes” law would close a loophole that currently allows people to watch violent, gruesome, or inflammatory propaganda without fear of prosecution. It is currently deemed an offense if extremist material is downloaded and stored, printed out, or saved in some way.
Under the new law, the offense of possessing information deemed useful to terrorists, would broaden to include material which is streamed or viewed online three or more times.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid will propose that the maximum penalty for the offense be increased from 10 to 15 years imprisonment, stating that a lesson learnt from 2017’s year of terror was that attacks need to be halted earlier.

“There are not enough offences on the statute book,” he said. “For example, if someone is encouraging terrorism online, a threshold needs to be reached before police get involved. We want to lower the threshold.”
https://www.rt.com/uk/428880-terror-...ampaign=chrome
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2018, 07:17 AM   #451
screamingeagle
Senior Member
 
screamingeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Croatia/Zagreb
Posts: 5,829
Likes: 399 (257 Posts)
Default

yes......intolerance masked as tolerance

on paper sounds just about right,but in reality will be the opposite......as proven by banned Icke's lectures
__________________
When you'll give up hope I'll teach you Will - Senecea
screamingeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.