Google, Facebook Domination Has Ruined The Internet For Everyone, Warns EPIC Report

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) warned in a statement to Congress that today’s internet is simply not sustainable thanks to the unsavory practices of internet bigwigs Facebook and Google. These two tech firms have so much power over the flow of information, they say, that internet users’ privacy is essentially “under assault.”

After all, their entire business model depends on them obtaining vast amounts of data about people to feed their algorithms. Their behavioral advertising targets consumers directly, using deep profiles of them and algorithms that look at race, religion, age, nationality, and other aspects of a person. They say that while ads should give people information about products, Facebook and Google are now giving advertisers information about consumers; these days, the consumers are the product.

MIT Technology Review points out that the combined market capitalization of the two firms was approximately equivalent to the GDP of Italy at $2 trillion. Three of every four dollars that are spent on digital advertising in the U.S. go to one of the two companies. Their constant refinement of their services and products attracts more users, which gives them even more data, fueling a never-ending cycle. Other businesses that start to look like a threat are quickly snapped up by the firms – for example, Facebook bought WhatsApp and Instagram.


Their reach goes way too far

EPIC also mentioned the practice of foreign advertisers buying political ads with the aim of undermining democratic elections. Washington state recently sued Google and Facebook for violations of their state’s campaign finance law due to their failure to maintain information about the buyers of election ads. This came in the wake of criticism across the board for the firms’ role in selling political ads; it was revealed that Russians bought ads using fake names with the aim of influencing American voters in the presidential election.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced Congress earlier this year to try to explain how Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm, obtained the data of 97 million Facebook users without informing them or getting their consent.


Google and Facebook are not just in control – they’re also completely biased

If Google doesn’t like your point of view or you’re telling truths that could hurt their advertisers’ profits, they ensure that your site will be buried so far down in the search results – if it appears at all – that you won’t get much traffic and your bottom line will take a huge hit. They’ve also taken to restricting ad serving on the pages that they don’t agree with, and it’s often these ads that keep such sites afloat. It’s an easy way for them to stifle opposing viewpoints.

Ditto for Facebook, who only need to slap a “fake news” label on sites that are reporting information they find inconvenient to ensure they stay buried. The aim, it appears, is to essentially put the bloggers and independent news sites that give people a much-needed alternative point of view out of business. As much as they can try to claim otherwise, algorithms are written by human beings – humans with their own biases and agendas, even if they’re not overt.

Some concerned observers have called for Google and Facebook to sell off YouTube and WhatsApp/Instagram respectively to give them less power. What people read and buy – and indeed, what they see in the first place – is controlled by this very dangerous duopoly, and most people don’t even realize what is happening.

Sources for this article include:


Source Article from

Drudge Warns: EU ‘Link Ban’ Could Kill Drudge Report, Internet Freedom

This article first appeared at our friend Infowars.

In 2015, Internet pioneer Matt Drudge warned that the establishment would try to ban links to news stories without paid permission from the site – and now the EU’s proposed Article 11 could do just that.

During an interview on the Alex Jones Show, Drudge revealed that copyright laws which prevent websites from even linking to news stories were being drafted.

“I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” he said. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.”

“To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited.”

On June 20, the EU will vote on its proposed Copyright Reform, which includes Article 11, aka the link tax, that would “force anyone using snippets of journalistic online content to get a license for the publisher first — essentially outlawing current business models of most aggregators and news apps,” according to an article from

In other words, Article 11 outlaws fair use reporting of news articles – such as this article – and critics even warn that the vagueness of Article 11 could ban websites like the Drudge Report from even linking to news articles, just as Matt Drudge warned nearly three years ago. goes into even further detail:

Article 11’s link tax allows news sites to decide who gets to link to them, meaning that they can exclude their critics. With election cycles dominated by hoaxes and fake news, the right of a news publisher to decide who gets to criticize it is carte blanche to lie and spin.

“That will end (it) for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge, warning web users were being forced into the Internet “ghettos” of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

“This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return – nothing!”

Source Article from

New Copyright Law Could Make Current and Future Internet Memes Illegal to Share


Posting memes, remixes, and other similar content could soon be banned from the web in the European Union, according to critics who are speaking out against a recently proposed copyright law.

The law, known as the “Copyright Directive,” will be voted on later this month by the European Parliament, and lawmakers suggest that this will protect content creators in the internet age. However, one of the primary reasons why the internet age has brought us so much innovation and novelty is because of the fact that such a large aggregate of people are able to share their ideas and build upon the ideas of others to create something uniquely special.

Article 13 of the proposed bill calls on platform providers such as Google, Facebook, and web hosts to “take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rights-holders for the use of their works”.

This type of policy would create a slippery slope that could very quickly lead to a situation where platforms are required to add a filter for the content that is shared through them, which will restrict the ability for creators to do something as simple as creating a meme or a remix of a song.

When the law was first suggested, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and 56 other civil society organizations sent an open letter to European lawmakers, warning of the possible implications of this law.

The letter reads:

“Article 13 introduces new obligations on internet service providers that share and store user-generated content, such as video or photo-sharing platforms or even creative writing websites, including obligations to filter uploads to their services. Article 13 appears to provoke such legal uncertainty that online services will have no other option than to monitor, filter and block EU citizens’ communications if they are to have any chance of staying in business. …

Article 13 would force these companies to actively monitor their users’ content, which contradicts the “no general obligation to monitor” rules in the Electronic Commerce Directive. The requirement to install a system for filtering electronic communications has twice been rejected by the Court of Justice, in the cases Scarlet Extended (C 70/10) and Netlog/Sabam (C 360/10). Therefore, a legislative provision that requires internet companies to install a filtering system would almost certainly be rejected by the Court of Justice because it would contravene the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business and the right to freedom of expression, such as to receive or impart information, on the other.”

Last week, Jim Killock, executive director of the UK’s Open Rights Group, told the BBC that “Article 13 will create a ‘Robo-copyright’ regime, where machines zap anything they identify as breaking copyright rules, despite legal bans on laws that require ‘general monitoring’ of users to protect their privacy. Unfortunately, while machines can spot duplicate uploads of Beyonce songs, they can’t spot parodies, understand memes that use copyright images, or make any kind of cultural judgment about what creative people are doing. We see this all too often on YouTube already.”

Add to that, the EU wants to apply the Robocop approach to extremism, hate speech, and anything else they think can get away with, once they put it in place for copyright. This would be disastrous,” Killock added.

Intellectual property is often sold as a legal measure to protect artists from scammers who may attempt to replicate their brand, but more often than not these types of legal avenues are taken advantage of by opportunists and exploited by publishers to the detriment of truly creative people. In the past, it was nearly impossible to implement such control over the internet, but now with complicated algorithms and the compliance of silicon valley tech companies, freedom on the internet is under constant threats.

DASH cryptocurrency and The Free Thought Project have formed a partnership that will continue to spread the ideas of peace and freedom while simultaneously teaching people how to operate outside of the establishment systems of control like using cryptocurrency instead of dollars. Winning this battle is as simple as choosing to abstain from the violent corrupt old system and participating in the new and peaceful system that hands the power back to the people. DASH is this system.

DASH digital cash takes the control the banking elite has over money and gives it back to the people. It is the ultimate weapon in the battle against the money changers and information controllers.

If you’d like to start your own DASH wallet and be a part of this change and battle for peace and freedom, you can start right here. DASH is already accepted by vendors all across the world so you can begin using it immediately.

Source Article from

Ben Rhodes Election Night Shock Clip From HBO Becomes Internet Comedy Meme

Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)


Source Article from

New World Order: Empire of the Internet, One World Marketplace

Daily Bell–In modern capitalist economies, foreign trade and investments have become all-important. Peace therefore brings unique dividends. As long as China and the USA are at peace, the Chinese can prosper by selling products to the USA, trading in Wall Street and receiving US investments.

Trade is the ultimate peacemaker. When two people–or peoples–benefit from one another, they only hurt themselves by hurting the other.

In Sapiens: a Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari delves into how the world is integrating, and what this means for peace and prosperity.

Greed now leads to peace, where it once lead to war.

[W]hile the price of war soared, its profits declined. For most of history, polities could enrich themselves by looting or annexing enemy territories. Most wealth consisted of fields, cattle, slaves and gold, so it was easy to loot it or occupy it. Today, wealth consists mainly of human capital, technical know-how and complex socio-economic structures such as banks. Consequently it is difficult to carry it off or incorporate it into one’s territory.

42% of wealth is the rule of law. And you can’t plunder that.

International business on all scales creates a more peaceful planet. It isn’t just the multinational corporations which integrate the world. The ease with which individuals can now communicate, travel, live, and run small businesses abroad creates obstacles to war and conflict.

The internet was the main catalyst for this integration. It is this decentralized, voluntary, spontaneous network which is creating a new world order.

One World Marketplace

Over time, this feedback loop creates another obstacle to war, which may ultimately prove the most important of all. The tightening web of international connections erodes the independence of most countries, lessening the chance that any one of them might single-handedly let slip the dogs of war. Most countries no longer engage in full-scale war for the simple reason that they are no longer independent. Though citizens in Israel, Italy, Mexico or Thailand may harbour illusions of independence, the fact is that their governments cannot conduct independent economic or foreign policies, and they are certainly incapable of initiating and conducting full-scale war on their own…

[W]e are witnessing the formation of a global empire. Like previous empires, this one, too, enforces peace within its borders. And since its borders cover the entire globe, the World Empire effectively enforces world peace.

This sounds scary if you think the global empire is a government. But the true global empire is the interconnectedness which makes violence unprofitable.

Think about it. The more connected the world becomes economically, the more we all share the same interests. It isn’t the United Nations or European Union keeping war at bay. It is the fact that people have homes in the UK and Italy. It is the fact that businesses operate across continents, in various markets.

We can share video, organize people, and broadcast ideas and warnings easier than ever. That is why people are so effectively questioning the events in Syria–we have access to information. It flows easily.

But even as recently as 9/11/2001, this was not the case. The news was still curated for us by large companies who fell under the control of large governments. Much less could be effectively questioned, and the mainstream narrative easily prevailed.

Now, individuals and “unapproved” groups can share and discuss what is truly going on. Individuals can participate instead of just spectating.

The new world order is one of individual action and grassroots organization. The internet has helped to decentralize this power. And this globally interconnected marketplace can take the role that governments once played in keeping the peace within their borders.

The Age of Personal Empowerment

[S]ince the end of World War Two… humankind has for the first time faced the possibility of complete self-annihilation and has experienced a fair number of actual wars and genocides. Yet these decades were also the most peaceful era in human history – and by a wide margin. This is surprising because these very same decades experienced more economic, social and political change than any previous era. The tectonic plates of history are moving at a frantic pace, but the volcanoes are mostly silent. The new elastic order seems to be able to contain and even initiate radical structural changes without collapsing into violent conflict.

So what changed? Were the governments themselves fundamentally different than governments of the past?

A couple of governments by this time had implemented some pretty serious reforms.

England started the trend with the Magna Carta. Colonial America was a further push along these same lines.

It was Roger Williams who started the colony in Rhode Island which set the tone for individual rights in North America. He kept peace with the Native Americans through trade. And he made his settlement prosperous by rejecting power as a right of kings or coming from God. It is the people that should control a government, not the other way around.

And when England failed to move the concept forward, the colonists separated and formed the United States of America, another experiment which moved the concept of individual liberty forward.

This freedom promoted even more prosperity, which gave people the means to direct their own destiny. And of course, people are drawn to prosperity. Freedom spreads because people see how much it has to offer. As trade increases, it creates more peace, more prosperity, and the cycle continues.

The concept of indivudal liberty was and still is, relatively new. Governments which tried a little bit of freedom ended up with very prosperous citizens. These citizens then had more freedom to move around the globe, and conduct more trade, inadvertently spreading the benefits of liberty.

The major change was that the global economy became more and more integrated.

People had more power to control governments with economic demand. And as a result, governments shifted.

The main promise of premodern rulers was to safeguard the traditional order or even to go back to some lost golden age. In the last two centuries, the currency of politics is that it promises to destroy the old world and build a better one in its place. Not even the most conservative of political parties vows merely to keep things as they are. Everybody promises social reform, educational reform, economic reform…

It is the people that changed–they became wealthyNo longer was wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite who also controlled the government. Now in order to stay in power, governments had to appeal to a different sentiment.

But it was the people that always had to change before the government changed. Since the Magna Carta in 1215, political change has lagged behind social change.

Some people already want to be freer than current governments allow. The New World Order will not be a one world government, it will be a one world marketplace.

Throughout history, most violence resulted from local feuds between families and communities. (Even today, as the above figures indicate, local crime is a far deadlier threat than international wars.) As we have seen, early farmers, who knew no political organisations larger than the local community, suffered rampant violence.6 As kingdoms and empires became stronger, they reined in communities and the level of violence decreased. In the decentralised kingdoms of medieval Europe, about twenty to forty people were murdered each year for every 100,000 inhabitants. In recent decades, when states and markets have become all-powerful and communities have vanished, violence rates have dropped even further. Today the global average is only nine murders a year per 100,000 people, and most of these murders take place in weak states such as Somalia and Colombia. In the centralised states of Europe, the average is one murder a year per 100,000 people.

So just as centralized states in the past have taken out the local strongman, so will this “global empire” take out the violent governments.

Since this global empire of free trade arose for the purpose of profits, and since violence and war threaten profits, we can assume that this one world marketplace will enforce peace in order to protect profits.

Anyone wishing to open up the Venezuelan market will need to make sure the people of Venezuela are free enough to be rich enough to buy their products.

How do you access the 40% of the wealth that the US government steals from the people? Currently, defense contractors get it by scaring people into supporting bloated military budgets.

But remember that we are trending towards open flow of information, people, and products. States will have two options:

  1. Compete with better offers to their citizens: lower taxes, less restriction, more freedom.
  2. Become violently oppressive to maintain their power.

But the new world order–the worldwide market built on the interconnected foundation of the internet–will not allow for such strife within its “borders.”

The trend is that global trade will continue to lead to more peace and individual liberty. Any governments or groups which oppose this will have to reckon with the Empire. Not one single government, but the marketplace–thousands or millions of organizations working together to form a spontaneous order.

The New World Order is coming. But it is being built on the foundation of individual liberty, freedom to prosper and trade. The Empire of the Internet will enforce peace on all of earth, within the borders of the One World Marketplace.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!

Source Article from

Exploring the dark side of the internet: How social media can make us do things that we wouldn’t normally do

Image: Exploring the dark side of the internet: How social media can make us do things that we wouldn’t normally do

(Natural News)
A study from Michigan State University explored the dark side of the internet and showed how social media can make people do things they wouldn’t normally do. The study, published in Present Tense Journal, took a closer look at something called supraplatforms, which are user experiences across social media platforms that manipulate social media users to perform actions they aren’t aware of and which aren’t in their best interest.

Often times, social media acts as a mask, shielding users from the repercussions of their typewritten words. Social media allows users to boast and vent frustrations about certain things, things a person wouldn’t normally blurt out-loud in a crowded room of real people. These internet masks change how people interact online, creating a dereliction in how people represent themselves and how people treat one another online.

Supraplatforms are built from this sensation. When someone posts praise or criticism about something or someone, it gives them more power. That power is multiplied when other online users get behind the praise or criticism. An errant rumor about someone online can quickly garner passionate emotional support from many social media users. These emotionally manipulated users can be tricked into attacking or terrorizing certain users, groups, or belief systems that are the center of the rumor or accusation.

Your tweet, hash tag, or comments online may not be coming from an authentic place inside you. Scrolling Facebook makes you less likely to have an original thought of your own, allowing you to mindlessly echo what you’ve read. You could be manipulated into supporting an attack on someone or some group. Your emotions might be susceptible online to engage in dark patterns where you perform actions that aren’t in your best interest. For example, the trending news that Facebook portrays on its homepage can motivate many Facebook users to engage in conversations and take sides they wouldn’t normally take up. You might think the topic is relevant because Facebook advertised it as a trending topic, but you’re really just being manipulated to think within their paradigm.

Supraplatforms take place across social media networks to garner your support for or against something, using your emotions to force actions you wouldn’t normally take. The repercussions grow as more people are manipulated to take sides against people and causes.

Online comments can quickly build peer pressure

In the GamerGate controversy, one angry social media user inspired thousands of others to back his movement, multiply his messages, and cyberbully innocent users. The thousands who participated didn’t even know they were being used. These online movements aren’t always destructive. “The important thing to consider is what kind of behavior is this community encouraging?” says lead author Liza Potts “If the community is asking you to take action on something, it is definitely worth thinking twice about participating.”

In GamerGate, one person’s rumor about a female game developer became a viral cyberbully movement. The unsubstantiated accusations, originating from the woman’s ex-partner, were represented by the hashtag #GamerGate on Twitter. Other gamers got on board with the attack and shared their negative sentiment about the game developer. The movement got louder. As people disagreed with them and combated the accusations, more people chimed in, for or against. Other inflammatory messages grew from the argument, spurring broader arguments about women, victimization, and media. People who had nothing to do with the original conversation were forced to defend themselves and their position on broader issues. The arguments spilled into Reddit, YouTube, and Facebook, as the original purveyor of the rumor garnered more attention.

“Once certain high-profile Twitter users saw that they could make a name for themselves by polarizing pop culture and other groups involved, it became a free-for-all for those wanting their own attention,” said Michael Trice, co-author of the study.

Facebook, like other social media platforms, is designed to give people “anti-depressant” dopamine rushes as they seek more and more “likes” on their posts. Scrolling Facebook makes you more likely to want admiration from your peers.

The study said that supraplatforms and dark patterns are always taking form across social media platforms and these emotionally manipulative movements change the way people engage with one another, not just online, but in person too. “What seems like a simple conversation on one site can often be part of a much larger operation that spans many different networks,” Trice said. “It’s pretty easy to fall in with a crowd on one platform, receive lots of positive feedback for aggressive behavior and then expand that behavior elsewhere. In that way, it’s not unlike falling in with a bad crowd in other parts of life.”

For more on the dark side of social media, visit Censored.News.

Sources include:



Source Article from

California: SB-1424 Internet: Social Media: False Information: Strategic Plan

California: SB-1424 Internet: Social Media: False Information: Strategic Plan

April 9th, 2018

Via: Jon Rappoport:

This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

(3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

(4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(c) As used in this section, “social media� means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.




Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Source Article from

Russian civil servants’ careers now depend on internet feedback from citizens

Civil servant


The Russian government has changed the assessment criteria for civil servants – now their careers will depend on feedback from ordinary citizens, as well as their reactions to reviews posted on the internet.

The order, signed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and published on the government’s website on Friday, details the rules by which the work of heads of regional branches of various state agencies can be assessed by ordinary citizens. The document also describes how the assessments can impact the officials’ careers, including “the early dismissal of such heads of agencies from their posts.”

There are two main components: the citizen evaluations of their work, and their handling of reviews posted on Gosuslugi – a site allowing communication with various state and municipal bodies and agencies.

The program will be funded as part of the ‘Information Society’ state program, according to the order.

In November 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree with details of the criteria used for evaluating regional governors and other officials from the executive branch. These include the average income, the percentage of people with incomes below the cost of living, availability of housing, and the quality and availability of community services. In addition, the assessments of governors made by the population in the region will be taken into account.

Earlier this week, the head of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, recommended the president stop reading reports and analyses from the various regions and start basing his assessments simply on the number of happy faces seen on public web cams.

“Study their faces, where the faces are the happiest the governor must be good; where the faces are gloomy, unhappy, irritated and mean – this is also an excellent sign to judge the performance of a governor or a mayor,” Zhirinovsky said.

Putin thanked him for his input, but said that the external happiness of people is hardly a parameter that can reflect the real situation in a region’s economy.

Source Article from