Is Facebook a private company? Are they a Publisher or Platform? Are they the new Public Square and if that is the case. . .why are they trying so hard to censor only One side unless they agree with radical progressives.
According to the Guardian, in an article titled,
Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes
See article in sources below.
so. . .they have spoke out of both sides of their mouths whenever it suits them.
Let's not forget all of their ties, connections and funding from CIA and DARPA like the 19th director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
To find out how they came along and how integral they were in the forerunner to the internet you now engage on called the Arpanet. . .go here,
More info found here with sourced links,
So how is Facebook actually traced to CIA funding? Great question!
Safer? Or more Surveilled? What does surveillance of an already Too Large Intelligence agency equal? Control of course!
It's all to ensure that the Agency remains on the forefront of tech. Not long ago, In-Q-Tel invested heavily in a company called Keyhole. Never heard of them? Maybe you know their work, a little project eventually known as Google Earth.
Find more info at the bottom.
Shout out to Great Patriot Nate for this key and on target link titled,
Platform, or Publisher?
If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business.
Adam Candeub, Mark Epstein
from May 7, 2018 Technology and Innovation
When the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on social media censorship late last month, liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies.” He added that just as the government cannot tell Fox News what content to air, “we can’t tell Facebook what content to filter,” because that would be unconstitutional.
Lieu is incorrect. While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it. . .
“does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content.
Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” . This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but. ..
** they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.**
When questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month, and in a subsequent op-ed, Cruz reasoned that “in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be ‘neutral public forums.’
As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship.
Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory.
Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.
. . .This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment.
Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle.
The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.
Guess What. . .Now,
WRWY
Read Carefully if you aren't aware of All of their Surveillance techniques!
So you understand. . .
See more here,
Now this,
New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, has announced the launch of a multi-state investigation into Facebook’s market dominance and “potential anticompetitive conduct stemming from that dominance.”
James is leading a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. “We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook’s actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers’ choices, or increased the price of advertising,” she said in a statement.
See more here,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-antitrust-case-against-facebook/ar-AAGV2p9
According to Jon Rappoport of Natural News,
The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.
Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.
Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to "gather data."
That's not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA's man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon's technology department that helped develop the Internet.
With these CIA/Darpa connections, it's no surprise that Jim Breyer's jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?
The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. It's what they've wanted all along.
From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for "exceptional children," CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.
CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.
When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.
Now it's time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively
Guess who will and Does play along with the facade? Mainstream media of course. . .they herald All the CIA and Globalists do as golden and good. . .no matter who they trample upon to push their agenda forward and data collection goals in an effort to Know all as score keeping and blackmailing tactics. Remember China's credit score that can make or break you? Why do you suppose the CIA needs all that data through Facebook and Google collection tactics?
Read more from the Natural News article in sources below.
Notice the April 2006 from this Timeline in Fortune of where Facebook got it's money,
April 2006
Investors including Accel, Thiel, Greylock Partners and Meritech raise $27.5 million. Current valuation: $500 million.
https://fortune.com/2011/01/11/timeline-where-facebook-got-its-funding/
They showed up in this research recently. . .GreyLock
Who is Really behind Roblox, what they are involved in and the access they have to children including the use of a proven pedophile symbol!
They have their fingers in virtually Everything!
Search on GreyLock Companies investments and Past investments. . .Note both Facebook and Instagram (owned by Facebook) are listed,
See more info in Sources below.
If you think this is Too far fetched, just look at who has worked for them. People like Regina Dugan.
This from one of my articles written 9 months ago,
This article was interesting,
It's all to ensure that the Agency remains on the forefront of tech. Not long ago, In-Q-Tel invested heavily in a company called Keyhole. Never heard of them? Maybe you know their work, a little project eventually known as Google Earth.
Was just pointed to an article in the New York Post by one of the Most Amazing Patriots ever whom I call LP (many thanks as he Always brings the Facts and pertinent info) on Voat titled,
Facebook may owe billions after losing facial recognition appeal
Now that's Interesting!
https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/facebook-may-owe-billions-after-losing-facial-recognition-appeal/
Here is the connection of Nellie Ohr (Bruce Ohr's wife) to the CIA
Prior to her work for Fusion GPS, Ohr worked for an internal open-source division of the CIA named Open Source Works from 2008 to at least June 2010; it appears likely that she remained in that role until 2014.
The CIA describes OSW as a division that uses open-source information to produce intelligence products.
Open Source Works] was charged by the Director for Intelligence with drawing on language-trained analysts to mine open-source information for new or alternative insights on intelligence issues.
See the rest of the story here,
Sources,
https://www.naturalnews.com/036889_Facebook_DARPA_CIA.html
https://www.greylock.com/greylock-companies/
https://fortune.com/2011/01/11/timeline-where-facebook-got-its-funding/
https://www.wired.com/2004/02/pentagon-kills-lifelog-project/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25241/george-h-w-bush-saved-the-cia
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/mark-zuckerbergs-conference-room-has-a-secret-panic-chute-report-says
https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=facebook&qft=interval%3d%227%22&form=PTFTNR
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-antitrust-case-against-facebook-google-amazon-and-apple-1516121561
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/jim-breyer
https://www.wired.com/2003/07/pentagon-alters-lifelog-project/
https://www.wired.com/2003/05/a-spy-machine-of-darpas-dreams/
Connecting articles,