“Surveillance Society”

The “Counter Disinformation Cell” is monitoring your online statements

Stories about censorship usually focus on the individuals prevented from publishing or saying something. But if we are to defend free expression from the new era of digital censorship, we need to focus much more closely on the censors themselves.

Few corporate actors are more powerful than social media companies and under the duress of political pressure, the power that they exercise over online discourse is slowly being melded to that of the state. Online speech standards based on maintaining corporate reputations have increasingly bent to political pressures and moral panics in recent years, often causing waves of online censorship in their wake.

The internet has never been so authoritarian

Be honest — did you read UnHerd’s “cookie policy” just now, before you clicked “accept and close”? Have you ever read one of those notices? Or do you, like me, agree to anything and everything so long as you can get to the good stuff more quickly?

Reading PJ Media the other day, I discovered to my shock that, without my knowing it, I’ve somehow become a violent extremist. As a result, the social media giants Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube are determined to eradicate my nefarious presence from the interwebs. I don’t know when this particular boom will be lowered on me, if ever, but if my website Jihad Watch and I suddenly disappear from your daily Internet reading, you’ll know that our intrepid self-appointed protectors are working night and day to keep you safe from violent extremism, and are to be commended for doing so.

The new domestic “War on Terror,” kicked off by the riot on Jan. 6, has prompted several web giants to unveil predecessors to what effectively could become a soft social credit system by the end of this decade. Relying on an indirect hand from D.C., our social betters in corporate America will attempt to force the most profound changes our society has seen during the internet era.

Social media has undoubtedly become the dominant form of communication in our society. Sixty-eight percent of U.S. adults identify themselves as Facebook users. Statistics show that people on average spend 2.5 hours per day on social networks and messaging. Also, 49 percent “of consumers depend on influencer recommendations on social media.” Social media boosters claim that this success shows that Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other platforms are fulfilling their promise to help build an interconnected world of free expression and solidarity in diversity of thought. But is this true?

July 30, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s Federal government released plans Thursday to create a “Digital Safety Commissioner” who would have the power to shut down websites deemed a threat to “democracy,” and to promote content deemed “harmful.”

“Canadians expect their government to take action against serious forms of harmful content online. We need to create new rules for social media platforms and online services to address harmful online content and hold individuals accountable, while respecting the importance of freedom of expression in a free and democratic society,” said Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti in a press release regarding the government launch of a “public consultation on a proposed approach for promoting a safe, inclusive and open online environment.”

The Liberal party government is a corrupt enemy of freedom.

The Canadian government released its plans yesterday for online harms legislation with a process billed as a consultation, but which is better characterized as an advisory notice, since there are few questions, options or apparent interest in hearing what Canadians think of the plans. Instead, the plans led by Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault pick up where Bill C-10 left off, treating freedom of expression as a danger to be constrained through regulations and the creation of a bureaucratic super-structure that includes a new Digital Safety Commission, digital tribunal to rule on content removal, and social media regulation advisory board. When combined with plans for a new data commissioner, privacy tribunal, and the expanded CRTC under Bill C-10, the sheer amount of new Internet governance is dizzying.

We who have lived in communist countries recognize the signs: American freedom of speech and thought are hanging on by a thread.

In 1991, Mario Vargas Llosa, Nobel laureate from Perú, caused a firestorm on Mexican television by calling Mexico the “perfect dictatorship, a phrase that has since become iconic. He pointed out that the one-party rule in Mexico had become entrenched: the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional in Spanish, or PRI) held uninterrupted power in the country for 71 years, even though the name of the presidents changed every five years (whereupon they were automatically amnestied by their successor for any criminal activity). Criticism—up to a point—was permitted, even encouraged, to maintain the illusion of Mexico being democratic. Opposition parties were allowed, but they often found that the means for an effective election campaign was controlled by the ruling party. As Vargas Llosa explained, a special kind of political rhetoric had been created to justify Mexico’s political system by recruiting intellectuals who were too willing to prostitute themselves. In short, it was a deviation from the traditional style of brutal military dictatorship, but it was a dictatorship nonetheless.

Experts worry that the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism could unfairly censor users

A nonprofit organization that major U.S. tech companies rely on for content moderation is expanding the scope of content it will blacklist on social media platforms.

The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism will expand its database of terrorist content to cover content shared by white nationalist and alt-right users, Reuters reported Monday. Tech companies, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Twitter, rely on the forum’s database to automatically remove inappropriate content. Experts worry that the forum’s lack of transparency could cause some users to be unfairly censored.

If the LPC web censorship bill goes through I have to wonder how long BCF will last.