Zensur 3.0 auf Twitter offiziell bestätigt und durch viele Erfahrungen und Screenshoots belegt

 

Du darfst alles sagen und schreiben, nur hört dich niemand und Retweets werde gelöscht/annulliert => shadow banning

Dabei kennt die USA eine umfassende Redefreiheit gegenüber etwa Europa und trotzdem werden politisch missliebige Themen via Shadow Banning ausgesperrt. Kurz und gut => Private Firma zensiert ihre „Kunden“, die davon aber offiziell nichts mitbekommen.

 

 

In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting the mainstream media and now Social Media, James O’Keefe of Project Veritas has just dropped a new undercover video which reveals Twitter „shadow banning“ and creating algorithms that censor certain ideas.

The first clip features a former Twitter software engineer who explains how/why Twitter „shadow bans“ certain users:

Abhinav Vadrevu„One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content.“

„So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don’t know if Twitter does this anymore.“

Meanwhile, Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:

“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

In the full video (see below) Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Nora explains that Twitter doesn’t have an official written policy that targets conservative speech, but rather they were following „unwritten rules from the top“:

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

Meanwhile, Pranay Singh reveals again just how creepy Twitter can be by digging into your profile and conversation history to determine whether or not you’re a „redneck“ and therefore worthy of being banned:

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”

When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

Twitter has been long accused of shadow banning and manipulating various metrics of user accounts. As Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars reported in August, 2016, Twitter was accused of suppressing tweets from then-candidate Trump in the home stretch of the US election, which some have construed as interfering:

Twitter is provably censoring Donald Trump in order to prevent him raising money for his presidential campaign.

A tweet sent out by Trump yesterday to promote his #MillionDollarMatch donation drive does not appear on Trump’s profile page nor did it appear on the feed of anyone following him.

You can check for yourself. Here is the tweet sent out by Trump yesterday and here is his main profile page – which doesn’t show the tweet. The tweet has been buried as if it never existed.

 

 

Trump tweet in which he declared that “the establishment and special interests are absolutely killing our country” was also shadow banned by Twitter back in April.

While Twitter is censoring Trump, it has repeatedly been accused of gaming its algorithms in support of Hillary. Back in February, users were irate after the social media giant appeared to censor the anti-Hillary hashtag #WhichHillary after it started trending.

Then in October, 2016, Dilbert creator Scott Adams was „shadowbanned“ by  Twitter, which he noted on his blog:

This weekend I got “shadowbanned” on Twitter. It lasted until my followers noticed and protested. Shadowbanning prevents my followers from seeing my tweets and replies, but in a way that is not obvious until you do some digging.

Why did I get shadowbanned?

Beats me.

But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.

Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed. There was an obvious similarity to them, meaning it was organized.

At around the same time, a bottom-feeder at Slate wrote a hit piece on me that had nothing to do with anything. Except obviously it was politically motivated. It was so lame that I retweeted it myself. The timing of the hit piece might be a coincidence, but I stopped believing in coincidences this year.

And in March of 2017, Twitter was caught by Ed Dowd – a politically active former BlackRock money manager who noted in early February that Twitter was both „un-retweeting“ several of his politically charged posts.

In one instance, Dowd made a decidedly subversive tweet pointing out that the NSA and CIA are „wiretapping“ the entire country via continuously archived data collection – a story which Wired magazine broke in 2006 and gained tremendous clarity through the acts of whistleblower Edward Snowden.

When Mr. Dowd checked his twitter feed hours after sending the tweet, he saw that it had accumulated 13 Retweets and 38 Likes. Given the subject matter, he decided to take a screenshot. Lo and behold, upon reloading the tweet five minutes later, Dowd discovered that 11 retweets had mysteriously vanished.

as

Another phenomenon Dowd noticed was that while he would gain followers throughout the day, there was a reliable „purge“ of followers in the dead of night, all around the same time. He began keeping track, and though it wasn’t happening every night, it penciled out to around half a percent of his followers each time it happened, effectively capping his audience. Ed had questions; why was it almost always the same number of people? Who un-follows someone in the middle of the night? Considering most of Dowd’s followers are in North America, the un-followers were likely asleep when it was happening. The logical conclusion was that Twitter had been actively pruning Ed’s audience to limit his growth on the platform.

This isn’t the first time Twitter has throttled, censored, or banned conservatives who speak their mind. Documentarian, author, and noted Trump supporter Mike Cernovich (@cernovich) tweeted about his own fan base evaporating around the same time as Dowd began experiencing the un-follows:

Of course, only time will tell if Twitter will take steps to ban political targeting in light of these new embarrassing revelations from Project Veritas…we have our doubts.

Werbeanzeigen

Eine US-Soldatenstimme zum „ewigen“ Krieg

LDieser Bericht lässt sich gut neben die Zeugenaussagen von soldaten aus dem Grabenkrieg im 1. Weltkrieg stellen. Die Sinnlosigkeit des Kampfes und die Verschwendung von Leben sind darin zentral.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/officers-path-dissent/

An Officer’s Path to Dissent

Maj. Danny Sjursen gathering coordinates to set up an airstrike while under fire during a patrol in Afghanistan’s Kandahar province. (Danny Sjursen)

For a while there, I was a real star. High up in my class at West Point, tough combat deployments in two wars, a slew of glowing evaluations, even a teaching assignment back at the military academy. I inhabited a universe most only dream of: praised, patted and highly respected by everyone in my life system and viewed as a brave American soldier. It’s a safe, sensible spot. For most, that’s enough. Too bad it was all bunk. Absurdity incarnate.

The truth is, I fought for next to nothing, for a country that, in recent conflicts, has made the world a deadlier, more chaotic place. Even back in 2011—or even 2006, for that matter—I was just smart and just sensitive enough to know that, to feel it viscerally.

Still, the decision to publicly dissent is a tough one. It’s by no means easy. Easy would be to go on playing hero and accepting adulation while staying between the lines. Play it safe, stick to your own, make everyone proud. That’s easy, intellectually immature—the new American way.

When you take the journey of dissent, you lose friends, alienate family, confuse confidants and become a lonely voice in your professional world. I’ve spent years sitting in military classrooms from West Point to Fort Knox to Fort Leavenworth as the odd man, the outlier, the confusing character in the corner. It’s like leaving the church, becoming an atheist, all while still living in the monastery. Still, the truth is that the military is more accommodating than one might suspect. I wrote a critical book, published some skeptical articles, but it’s not as though anyone ever outright threatened me. The pressure is different, more subtle: veiled warnings from superiors, cautious advice from mentors.

I waited too long. I admit as much. Maybe I needed a decade to stew, or perhaps my brief sojourn in civilian graduate school shook something loose. Nonetheless, a few years back, the emotional weight was unbearable and out poured the dissenting waves.

Looking back, I can just about see my own path—what I saw, how it felt—and trace the guideposts and way points on the road to a spiritual and intellectual rebirth. The images flicker, mental fragments that explain my wayward trek to dissension.

In Baghdad, I saw chaos unleashed, watched a sectarian civil war unfold, witnessed the strife our ill-advised, unprepared invasion unleashed. We were terrified voyeurs to the tragedy playing out before us. Militias left gruesome bodies in the streets for us to find. The Sunnis cut off heads, the Shiites preferred power drills to the temples and joints. Both sides attacked us. Through it all, locals treated us to stories of how matters had been better under the secular brutality of Saddam Hussein.

Then there were the patrols. So many patrols. They were mostly useless, of course. Show presence, provide security, don’t get blown up. Then our kids started getting hit. It comes in flashes. Scrubbing your sergeant’s blood out of the Humvee so you can patrol the next morning. Cleaning up another soldier’s skull, fatally penetrated by a copper slug, his face frozen in a look of terror, trash from the filthy east Baghdad street beside his cheek.

The aftermath of car bombs in the marketplace. The haze of smoke and stench of burning flesh. Ordinary Iraqis: the usual victims.

Leaving the war zone. Back home. Alcohol. My driver’s suicide, hanging from a belt in his closet.

Time passes, another mate dead—overdose, prescription pills. Dead kids, my boys, and the wives and mothers I did not have the courage to face for years.

Nothing improved. Not really. The end state was Islamic State, fracture, more death, Trump, a new American crusade on the Euphrates.

Next was Afghanistan, the unwinnable war. The 13th-century irrigation system. Realizing the locals don’t want to live in our image, don’t yearn to be Americans. Knowing most villagers—at least down south—generally agreed with the basic contours of the Taliban agenda. “Allied” sheikhs and “friendly” Afghan government officials who grew the illegal poppy our patrols slogged through. Obtuse American colonels who wanted to wall off or barb-wire Afghan villages as if we were in Baghdad, South Africa or worse.

Discerning, eventually, as I sat on the sandbags of my small outpost—the Alamo of Kandahar province—that we only really held the ground we stood on. Nothing else. Turning down invitations from Afghan “partners” to attend their regular hash-smoking buggery parties. Explaining to U.S.-trained Afghan officers—outsiders from the north who didn’t even speak the local language—that they must stop torturing their own deserters. Appearances and all.

Watching young men lose limbs and lose lives to pad the resumes of aggressive majors who want to be colonels and colonels who want to be generals. Some could hardly spell “Afghanistan.” Still, they mostly succeeded in promotion. Maybe they’ll run the next war.

Seventeen years, thousands of Americans still there, and the Taliban control more of the country than at any time since Uncle Sam’s invasion. We may never leave.

Through it all was the guiding question: Has anything I’ve done—or we’ve done—made Americans’ lives any better? More importantly, has it measurably improved the world? What if we’ve made it worse?

On a day in Afghanistan in 2011, I realized everything I was doing, and the only thing I still cared about was damage control, protecting our troops from needless death. I basically was phoning it in and should have known it was time to quit, lest I lose more of my soul. Even so, the easy path beckoned.

Of course, I’d tried to convince myself, as so many do, that staying in the military is courageous, that it’s possible to change the system from the inside, and that good people, critical thinkers, need to stay the course rather than jump ship. Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s fantasy. Who knows?

This business damages you, takes something from you, a permanent loss. It affects everyone differently. Probably, I’m a distant outlier.

Anyway, nowadays my heart is with the Rohingya in Myanmar, Palestinians in Gaza, places, oftentimes, where I’ve never even been, people I’ve never met. It’s a sad world once you’re that inside yourself.

Still, life trudges along. My wife shops for paint colors for our new house, engages with the kids, lives in the moment. I struggle with such practicalities, because, in so many ways, I’m not here. Not most of me. I’m in Baghdad, staring in wonder at the aftermath of a truck bomb. In Afghanistan, delivering a memorial address for one of my dead troopers, a kid, to be honest, that I hardly knew.

I’ll likely die a sad man. This much I know.

But for now, I can give voice to a different path, a nobler cause, a chance, at least a chance, of common sense, sober strategy and, just maybe, a semblance of peace—something a whole generation has never known. In my own minuscule way, I’ll try.

We, the few of us who care to question, owe at least that much.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

Maj. Danny Sjursen
Maj. Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan…

CIA – DOJ Verschwörung gegen Trump

30. Dez. 2017

1) Um Maggie, [ ] hate to undercut your *explosive story* on origin of Russia Probe. But George Papadopoulos talking in May 2016, is likely about this *open and public information* from April 2016.

2.) Additionally, worth noting is nowhere in the Joint Analysis Report [Comey, Brennan and Clapper construct] is anything about George Papadopoulos even hinted or alluded to.

3.) [ ] ABC in Australia is reporting it was Alexander Downer (Australian High Commissioner to UK) who then let counterparts in US know that George Papadopolous was talking about the Sidney Blumental hack via Clinton Emails.

4.) The is also nonsense based on common sense. Papadopoulos was so important that: July 15th 2016 Comey opens counterintel investigation into Russian collusion. January 15th 2017 FBI visits Papadopoulos for first time. FBI waited for six months to talk to him?

5. If George Papadopoulos was so important to the FBI “investigation” why did all “intelligence” agencies released their final JAR report without ever speaking to him? Not even once?

6. No what you have in your article is a well constructed and brutally familiar pattern of what journalism looks like when the IC use reporters to cover their tracks and create a justification based on a false premise.

7. The Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby, Nellie Ohr etc. and subsequent Christopher Steele origin of the FISA application source material is a risk to the former leadership within the DOJ National Security Division and FBI Counterintelligence Division.

8. That’s why both FBI and DOJ sides of this intelligence operation need to create a false origin. The actual FISA application content is a much more explosive risk. Use your common sense logic hat and see when you are being played.

9. USE COMMON SENSE: If a Papadopolous conversation in May 2016 was the origin, the source material, of the FBI counterintelligence operation, then why were they denied a FISA application in June/July 2016 ?

10. The wife of Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS), Mary B. Jacoby, with years of Russia-angled reporting –including Donald Trump– visits the White House on April 19th 2016.

11. Mary B Jacoby is a deep part of Clinton’s political camp going all the way back to the Rose Law Firm. You know that because you know her. After the April 19, 2016, WH visit, the DNC and Clinton campaign hire Mary and Glenn (Fusion GPS) for the „trump project“.

12. Immediately after Fusion was paid, Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby (Fusion GPS Patriarchs), hire Nellie Ohr.

13. As you know, Nellie Ohr is the wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr. The same Bruce Ohr who was demoted for meeting with Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele, along with FBI agent Peter Strzok, w/out telling DOJ leadership.

14. Again, you know this stuff. Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr and Glenn Simpson have known each other for years; and have worked on CIA *open source* projects together for a long time.

15 As you know all of these people are SME’s on everything Russia and everything Russia intelligence. It is all of this activity in April and May, not innocuous George Papadopolous reading newspapers, that assembled data and eventually led to the „Russia Probe“.

16. on June 24th 2017 Mary Jacoby even publicly stated on her facebook that her work with Glenn is what specifically led to the FBI beginning the „Russia Probe“.

17. After the initial July 2016 FISA Court denial, the FBI and DOJ team leaned heavily on the external team of Jacoby, Simpson, Ohr, Steele etc. who created the „dossier“ that enhanced the application that gained the FISA warrant in Oct.

18. as you know, because of the legal framework around them, FISA warrants can be applied retroactively. Wiretaping and monitoring can technically begin while evidence is gathered to justify a DOJ-NSD warrant application later.

19. Which is exactly what former DOJ Attorney General John P. Carlin, National Security Division head, admitted to the FISA Court (October 2016) right before he quit his job.

20. So the question I have for you is: Did you write that nonsense about George Papadopolous because the IC (FBI/DOJ) tricked you into it?….. OR were you a willing participant in helping transmit political disinformation in an effort to help them cover their tracks?

21. Happy New Year !!