Posted on 11/10/2017 12:09:25 PM PST by Louis Foxwell
News Nanny: The Race to Censor Internet News If we don’t fight now, conservatives will vanish from the internet. November 10, 2017 Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
How can you tell that internet censorship is really taking off? Easy. It’s becoming a business model.
Steven Brill is raising $6 million to launch News Guard. This new service will rate news sites on their trustworthiness from green to red. Forget politically unbiased algorithms. The ratings will be conducted by "qualified, accountable human beings" from teams of “40 to 60 journalists.” Once upon a time, journalism meant original writing. Now it means deciding which original writing to censor.
"Can trust be monetized?" The Street’s article on News Guard asks. But it isn’t really trust that’s being monetized. It’s censorship. It’s doing the dirty work that Google and Facebook don’t want to do.
The Dems and their media allies have been pressuring Google and Facebook to do something about the “fake news” that they blame for Trump’s win. The big sites outsourced the censorship to media fact checkers. The message was, “Don’t blame us, now you’re in charge.”
Facebook made a deal with ABC News and the AP, along with Politifact, FactCheck and Snopes, to outsource the censoring for $100K. When two of these left-wing groups declare that an article is fake, Facebook marks it up and viewership drops by 80%.
Facebook is reportedly considering adding the Weekly Standard to its panel of fact checkers. Even if that were to happen, it would be the difference between putting the New York Times without David Brooks or the Times with David Brooks in charge of deciding what you can read on Facebook. Adding a token conservative who is acceptable to the left doesn’t change the inherent bias of the system.
Not only does the roster of fact checkers lean to the left, but so do its notions of what’s true and false. For example, Snopes and Politifact both insist that General Pershing’s forces never buried the bodies of Muslim terrorists with pigs. But General Pershing specifically stated in his autobiography, "These Juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice that the Mohamedans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig.”
Both the New York Times and the Scientific American reported on it at the time. Despite that Snopes rated this widely accepted historical fact as “False” and Politifact marked it as “Pants on Fire”.
Snopes also recently marked a story that Christ Church in Virginia is removing a George Washington plaque as false even though the church publicly announced that it was doing so.
Politifact and Snopes are entitled to their incorrect opinions. The trouble is that they don’t extend the same privilege to those they disagree with. And Google and Facebook promote fake fact checks while burying sites that discuss actual historical facts. The big internet companies don’t want to get involved in all these arguments. But nor are they willing to let their users decide for themselves anymore.
And so Net Nanny for news has become an actual business model. Instead of protecting children from pornography, News Nanny protects adults from news. And from views outside the left’s bubble.
By adopting the News Nanny model, Google and Facebook are treating their users like children.
The News Guard model is in some ways even more insidious than biased fact checking because it sets up lists of approved and disapproved sites. Google is rolling out something similar with its “knowledge panels” for publishers. Search for the New York Times and the panels will tell you how many Pulitzers the paper has won. Search for Front Page Magazine and the panel note describes it as, “Political alignment: Right-wing politics”. No note listing a left-wing political alignment appears in the panel for the New York Times despite its recent laudatory series about the Soviet Union and Communism.
The media never has an official political orientation. Not even when it’s cheering Communism. But its opponents and critics always have one. Follow Google’s link for Front Page’s political alignment and the top entry states, “Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable”.
That’s a wholly inaccurate description of either Front Page Magazine or conservative politics in America. And it’s another example of how the fight against “fake news” by the left actually ends up producing it.
And it isn’t meant to stop there.
The Google Blog casually mentions that the panels will also list, “claims the publisher has made that have been reviewed by third parties”. You get one guess as to who those “third parties” will be.
Fact checking has become a pipeline to censorship. The big social and search companies outsource fact checking to third parties and then demonetize, marginalize and outright ban views and publishers that those third parties disagree with. Fact checks are no longer an argument. They’re the prelude to a ban.
Google and Facebook respectively dominate search and social media. When they appoint official censors for their services, those left-wing fact checkers become the gatekeepers of the internet.
And the internet isn’t supposed to have gatekeepers.
Senator Al Franken, of all people, made that point at the Open Markets Institute. OMI’s people have emerged as the leading opponents of big tech monopolies on the left.
“No one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t,” Franken said. “And Facebook, Google and Amazon, like ISPs, should be neutral in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platform.”
There is no more obvious example of the lack of neutrality than Facebook and Google’s partnership with “fact checkers”. If Net Neutrality means anything, it should strike down Google’s partnership with Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network and Facebook’s use of Snopes to silence conservatives.
When sites picked and chose content based on algorithms, they were deciding which content reached users based on what was likely to be popular. And, occasionally, based on their own agendas. Now they are picking and choosing which content reaches users based on political orientation. While the advocates for Net Neutrality rage against cable companies, Comcast and Charter aren’t engaging in political censorship. No matter how they disguise it, Google and Facebook’s news nannies are.
News Guard is an ominous warning that online censorship is becoming a viable business model as the big tech companies look around for someone else to do their dirty work for them. But subcontracted censorship is still censorship. And the only people impressed by the credentials of the “fact checkers” are those who share their politics. Unfortunately that covers the leadership of Google and Facebook.
Discussions about fake news often begin and end with “trust”. Major media outlets with Pulitzers are trustworthy. Major fact checking operations are also trustworthy. Even Snopes is somehow trustworthy despite its utter lack of professionalism, and its founders accusing each other of embezzlement,
But “trust” has more than one meaning. We trust those people and organizations we like. And sometimes those organizations form a trust. And anyone who isn’t in, is untrustworthy.
Trust in the mainstream media has never been lower. Yet the big tech companies insist that mainstream media sources are the only trustworthy ones. They want us to trust them, because they don’t trust us.
The internet was a revolutionary environment that liberated individuals to make their own choices. Bloggers could compete with big media. Leaked emails could bring down a government. But the internet is becoming less free. Access is controlled by a handful of tech companies that keep getting bigger and bigger. The survivors of the scale wars will combine cable, content and commerce in new ways. And in a politicized culture, they won’t just signal their political views, they will enforce them.
If we don’t fight now, ten years from now conservatives will be the rats in the walls of the internet.
Front Page mag - A Project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Daniel Greenfield Ping List Notification of new articles.
I am posting Greenfield's articles from FrontPage and the Sultan Knish blog. FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Greenfield ping list.
I recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.
FrontPage is a basic resource for conservative thought.
Lou
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fiGVhiSe7Es/UC2iXPZr6dI/AAAAAAAAIBo/dnH7JqKKqVQ/s1600/sidepicture.jpg"left")
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post or notify me by Freepmail.
Access is controlled by a handful of tech companies that keep getting bigger and bigger. The survivors of the scale wars will combine cable, content and commerce in new ways. And in a politicized culture, they won’t just signal their political views, they will enforce them.
If we don’t fight now, ten years from now conservatives will be the rats in the walls of the internet.
For government to force any entity to be "neutral" would be a truer censorship than anything Facebook, Google, Amazon, or ISPs have the power to do. At most, they should be required to not fraudulently misrepresent their offering - that is, be required to state clearly and upfront disclose any content filtering.
Time to go peer to peer protocol like bitcoin
Every liberal is a violent totalitarian thug.
“Time to go peer to peer protocol like bitcoin”
How to set it up? Let’s do it!
“Every liberal is a violent totalitarian thug.”
Let’s look at this more closely.
The “good guy with a gun” will be a conservative, a republican.
The “attacker, robber, mass shooter” will be a liberal, a democrat.
It is always the democrats attacking and shooting republicans.
When will we pass common sense democrat control?
As a Jewess on the US, I can only point out that the number of women who allegedly DATED, but had no sex with, Roy Moore is EXACTLY the same number who accused President Clinton of FORCIBLE RAPE, a FAR more serious offense. Now we know why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST. Just sayin’!
One of my favorite new youtube channels was banned yesterday. All they did was show extreme weather events weekly. world of signs.
What most consider “the Internet” isn’t the totality thereof, it’s only the “tip of the iceberg” publicly visible, mapped by Google & friends, and known to most because any point thereof is conveniently accessible from any other point thereof.
There is “the Dark Web”, sites & systems that opt to operate outside Google et al’s publicity, avoiding official & gov’t visibility. Some contend that this data space is significantly larger than “the [public] Internet”.
Censor enough, and the Right may very well create their own “alt-Web”. Really isn’t hard to create “alt-DNS registries”, mapping website names to the underlying (and politically neutral) IP addresses hugely available. It’s also entirely possible to “hide in plain sight” websites etc that use TOR, VPN, Torrent, and other technologies to resist censorship. We can even go so far as to start physically independent networks, cheaply creating “ad-hoc networking” which [ab]uses existing systems and creates new censorship-resisting data paths.
Upshot: there’s an old aphorism that “the internet views censorship as damage, and simply routes around it.” We can do that.
Interesting how the Left used to wave the banner of “end censorship!” yet now it’s the Left doing the censoring and the Right routing around it.
You might want to look at the commenting history here: the same post in dozens of threads.
And here’s the NY Times article from 1903 covering the use burying Moro terrorists with pigs
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13190219/the_new_york_times/
We’ll have to learn how to use the “Dark Net.”
Yes, an electronic Samizdat is what’s called for.
Liberals are the most stingiest, polluting, unfriendly, greedy, fascist, hate-filled, mean-spirited, envious, resentful, vicious, close-minded, violent, murdering, child-abusing, amoral, stupid, censoring, horse-punching, book-burning, ignorant, uneducated, unskilled, childish, prejudiced, racist, women-hating, man-hating, perverted, thieving, destructive, American-hating, Christian-hating, muslim-loving, Jew-hating, Israel-hating, communist, vote-rigging, vulgar, dirty, smelly, election-rejecting, regressive, restrictive, prohibitive, bed-wetting, poo-flinging, cop-killing, and scared little lying thumb-sucking idiots God has ever created.
Basically it would mean setting up a sort of micro server encryption tech in each home which would make a giant google like super computer spread all over homes mirroring sites what not
Bitcoin uses graphic card array because the cards process without being directly connected to the network, insuring security
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.