The Slippery Slope: If Facebook bans content that questions vaccine dogma, will it soon ban articles about toxic chemotherapy, fluoride and pesticides, too?


Image: The Slippery Slope: If Facebook bans content that questions vaccine dogma, will it soon ban articles about toxic chemotherapy, fluoride and pesticides, too?

In accordance with the company’s ongoing efforts to censor all truth while promoting only establishment fake news on its platform, social media giant Facebook has decided to launch full-scale war against online free speech about vaccines.

Pandering to the demands by California Democrat Adam Schiff, Mark Zuckerberg and his team recently announced that they are now “exploring additional measures to best combat the problem” of Facebook users discussing and sharing information about how vaccines are harming and killing children via social media.

According to an official statement released by Facebook, the Bay Area-based corporation is planning to implement some changes to the platform in the very near future that may include “reducing or removing this type of content from recommendations, including Groups You Should Join, and demoting it in search results, while also ensuring that higher quality and more authoritative information is available.”

In other words, the only acceptable form of online speech pertaining to vaccines that will be allowed on Facebook is speech that conforms to whatever the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says is “accurate” and “scientific.” Anything else, even if it comes from scientific authorities with a differing viewpoint, will be classified as false by Facebook, and consequently demoted or removed.

Facebook’s censorship tactics are becoming more nefarious by the day. To keep up with the latest news, be sure to check out Censorship.news.

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

Facebook is quickly becoming the American government’s ministry of propaganda

Facebook’s rationale, of course, is that it’s simply looking out for the best interests of users who might be “misled” by information shared in Facebook groups suggesting that the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, as one example, isn’t nearly as safe as government health authorities claim.

And that’s just it: There are many things that the government is wrong about, but that have been officially sanctioned as “truth” by government propagandists. If Facebook bows down to these government hacks with regards to vaccines, there’s no telling what the company will try to ban from its platform in the future.

As we saw in the case of Cassandra C. from Connecticut, the government actually forced this young girl to undergo chemotherapy against her will, claiming that the “treatment” was absolutely necessary to “cure” her of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Not only did the government deny young Cassandra the right to make her own medical decisions, but it also overrode the will of her parents, who also opposed taking the chemotherapy route. In essence, the government forced Cassandra to undergo chemotherapy at gunpoint, and now it’s trying to do the exact same thing with Facebook.

If little Adam Schiff is successful at forcing Facebook to only allow information on its platform that conforms with the official government position on vaccines, the next step will be to outlaw the sharing of information on the platform about the dangers of chemotherapy, as well as the dangers of fluoride, pesticides, and other deadly chemicals that the government has deemed as “safe and effective.”

Soon there won’t be any free speech at all on Facebook, assuming the social media giant actually obeys this latest prompting by the government to steamroll people’s First Amendment rights online. And where will it end?

“The real national emergency is the fact that Democrats have power over our lives,” warns Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.

“These radical Leftists are domestic terrorists and suicidal cultists … they are the Stasi, the SS, the KGB and the Maoists rolled all into one. They absolutely will not stop until America as founded is completely ripped to shreds and replaced with an authoritarian communist-leaning regime run by the very same tyrants who tried to carry out an illegal political coup against President Trump.”

Advertisements

Censorship: Google to start flagging “offensive” content as another form of censorship.


One of the most dangerous words in America today is the word “offensive,” not because it’s used to describe something that hurts one’s feelings, but because of how it is used by the progressive Left. It goes without saying that the word “offensive” is a subjective term that can mean many different things to many different people; what Sally finds offensive may not be offensive to Joe, and vice versa. Because of the term’s lack of definition, it is up to us to give it definition. This is dangerous because it invites people to use the word in a way that best suits their own biases or agendas. Such is the case with the Democratic Party, which has essentially hijacked the word “offensive,” and now uses it to mean anything that comes out of the mouth of a conservative.

Image: Censorship: Google to start flagging “offensive” content as another form of censorship

Americans should be very weary whenever they see a company or an organization announce plans to combat offensive language. Entities, just like individuals, have their own political agendas, and often justify silencing the opposition by claiming to be combating “offensive speech.”

Google is the latest corporation to join the fight against “offensive” speech on the Internet. Recently, the multibillion-dollar company directed its review teams to locate and flag language that could potentially be upsetting or offensive. By doing this, Google hopes to improve the overall quality of search results. (RELATED: Read about how Google took action to censor Natural News).

If a member of the Google review team decides that one of the search results contains racial slurs, or that it promotes hate or violence in some way, then the content will be flagged under a new “upsetting-offensive” category.

While the flagging system doesn’t delete search results completely, it does make it so that “offensive” results are buried and made more difficult to find, whereas search results that are considered to be high quality are more easily accessible. For example, an article about the role the religion of Islam plays in terror attacks may be pushed down and made more difficult to find, while an article about celebrating diversity would be a “quality” search result and found more easily. This, of course, is an extreme example, but you get the point.

The review teams that are responsible for judging the quality of the search results are called “quality raters.” These people examine different websites and other content to look for things that are offensive or upsetting, such as pornography. The new feature that Google has added gives these quality raters the ability to list the “offensive content” under the new “upsetting-offensive” category. Thus far, Google has declined to comment on these changes.

The “upsetting-offensive” flag reportedly instructs reviewers to “flag to all web results that contain upsetting or offensive content from the perspective of users in your locale, even if the result satisfies the user intent.” In other words, even if the results satisfy what the user was searching for, such as white supremacist websites or anti-Semitic articles, they could still potentially get flagged, even though it still wouldn’t delete the search result entirely.

While an excess of propaganda and misinformation circulating the web is not something that should be encouraged, any company that seeks to regulate speech should instantly raise the red flag for supporters of the First Amendment. While it appears that right now Google is only seeking to limit the amount of extreme content out there, such as pornography and white supremacist sites, this new initiative could easily begin infringing on the free speech rights of American citizens, even if it’s speech that is not offensive or upsetting. Despite good intentions, Google may very well have started down a slippery slope.

If you are uncomfortable or weary about what Google is doing, sign our petition to let them know that their actions are in violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.

Sources:

http://www.naturalnews.com/

Web inventor says Internet should be ‘human right’


Tim Berners-Lee said on Thursday the Internet can help tackle inequality but only if it comes with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

The computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web says affordable access to the Internet should be recognized as a human right, as a report showed that billions of people still cannot go online and government surveillance and censorship are increasing.

Tim Berners-Lee, the British scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web, says affordable access to the Internet should be recognized as a human right. File photo

Tim Berners-Lee said on Thursday the Internet can help tackle inequality but only if it comes with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The Briton, who launched the Web in 1990, made the remarks as he released his World Wide Web Foundation’s latest report tracking the Internet’s global impact.

The Web Index found that laws preventing mass online surveillance are weak or nonexistent in more than 84 percent of countries. It also said that almost 40 percent of surveyed countries were blocking sensitive online content to a “moderate or extreme degree,” and that half of all Web users live in countries that severely restrict their rights online.

Almost 4.4 billion people most of them in developing countries still have no access to the Internet, the Web Index said.

“It’s time to recognize the Internet as a basic human right,” Mr. Berners-Lee said. “That means guaranteeing affordable access for all, ensuring Internet packets are delivered without commercial or political discrimination, and protecting the privacy and freedom of Web users regardless of where they live.”

Denmark, Finland, and Norway were ranked as top overall, meaning they were best at using the Internet for economic, political and social progress. At the bottom of a list of 86 countries were Yemen, Myanmar and Ethiopia.

Mr. Berners-Lee was working an engineer at the CERN laboratory in Geneva when he proposed the idea of a World Wide Web in 1989.