Where do I get information of the process of censorship on the internet?

This is an honest question and not made rhetorically. Are the ISP handing out guidelines and threaten to drop the website if it's not followed? Does a CIA/FBI agent show up at the door of the website owner? What's the process of censoring free speech on the internet?

It looks exactly like " Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" situation.

 

What are you referencing? Were you personally censored? Why? Where?

 

...

I found this very recent online article very interesting:

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.p...ship-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont.html (The article is a lot longer than my bit below.)

Prompted by Donald Trump’s ban from social media, calls are once again growing from politicians for internet sites to be held liable if they remove lawful content and users. Soon it may be a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t, as the future approach toward protecting freedom of speech risks doing the opposite.

Over the past decade we’ve seen and heard a lot of examples concerning how user generated internet content has been used to spread hate speech (racism, bullying etc.), terrorism and a variety of other perhaps unwelcome traits of negative human thought.

However, the recent decision to ban the former (soon to be) U.S President, Donald Trump, from many social media sites, which contentiously occurred after he appeared to incite violence and continued to promote unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, also appears to be catalysing another side of the argument.

 

I'm just going to get the ball rolling here. A majority is based on covid 19. Most of the conduits to state facts against it are shut down claiming that they are conspiracy theories. "Fact Checks" by FaceBook and News websites?!!! WTF! FaceBook monitors you and if you make a statement that does not support covid 19 , you get a fact check or put in FaceBook Jail. You have to go to Alex Jones or StormFront to actually watch/read about information that does not support the lockdown and or taking a vaccine that has not gone through the standardized testing that other vaccines have for what is looking like just the flue of 2019.

All of the news media is doing this including The Skeptical Inquirer. BTW I only went to StormFront because their website was taken down and it's in a Wikipedia article.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated something about creating a government body to combat what she calls 'fake news' and 'misinformation' She is the new propaganda mistress of the DNC.

The news really has become a propaganda machine to force the purchase of vaccines.


So if you are selling a vaccine you get all of the media sources at your disposal and if you are streetsmart and or have been lied to ,scammed , exploited and sold out you have Alex Jones or StormFront. Do you see the comparison here?

What I'm guessing is keeping Covid 19 off of most of the forums is a complaint to the Domain Name Register of the offending website. Most websites cant' fight it like Alex Jones or StormWatch so a threat from a lawyer gets the opposing views of convid 19 taken down.

I seems very suspicious that there is almost no opposing webpages on covid 19 but Google even puts up ads that support it.Who is paying for googles ads? Is it a free public service to the vaccine sellers?

 

What you say makes ZERO sense FB is a PRIVATE entity as to wit NOT subject to FEDERAL free speech, being as you reference Alex Jones and stormfront you are probably just out to stir the shit pot

 

But you still follow the law and the guidelines of the internet regulator.
It is the latest regulations that have resulted in many sites having to discontinue personal messaging. Youtube was one of the first sites who admitted that they were unable to prevent promotion of terrorism and paedophile activity and were forced to shut their PM system down. Google now use the system that monitors their search engine to check the 400 hours of video uploaded onto Youtube every hour. For fear of people finding loopholes, they won't even tell the UK government how it works.

 

Internet regulators in the US, western Europe and the former British colonies, along with most other democratic countries seem to work together in following the basic rules of preventing promotion of paedophilia, terrorism and organised crime. This seems to work fairly well in limiting block firewalls all over the place. US music publishers are the worst for blocking individual content. Quite a few videos on HF come up as "This video is not available in your country" here in the UK.
Does the same happen to you in reverse.
As you may already know, our cookie policy was upgraded a few years ago. Do you know whether this is part of an international agreement.
It can be a problem at times, not allowing companies that I have dealt with for years sending me an email about changes in location or contact details.
On the plus side, it prevents companies flooding me with spam, just because I have opened their website.
I was told that this may have been updated to something like one communication per year, I am not sure whether that is true, but it sounds like a fair solution.

 

Sorry, I just noticed that you mentioned that the cookie policy originated in the EU. Since our departure from the dinosaurs, it is not likely to be something that we will want to change.
If they had not meddled in telling us what potatoes we can grow, expecting us to allow free passage for criminals and where we should train our army, we would probably not have jumped ship. The old EEC worked far better.

 

You have my sympathys Zen.
I could go on a rant about it all, but at 00.10am here in UK it is time to shut this computer down and have a couple beers and some supper.
But.
This is one of the reasons the UK voted for Brexit because the EU is just a huge beaurocratic Hell Hole Mess!
Hopefully now we are free from that particular EU Horror Story.
Regulations and red tape will start to be shredded!
And not before time!

 

The thing that infuriated me so much it that Brussels interfered with our building regulations so much, particularly the red tape and administration.
As a result, developers could appoint their own surveyors to certify their work. A clear conflict of interest.
The second example is that surveyors can practice anywhere in within the EU.

2 years ago, I was asked to give an example of how this could go wrong.
You can only imagine their response to my 2 word answer. "GRENFEL TOWER".
It took an official enquiry a couple of years and a few million pounds to bury what I have just mentioned in 1,200 pages of inaccurate, irrelevant and meaningless waffle.
Even blaming the cladding was not the answer. The true answer was if you are going to use it, don't install it in such a way that you are building the UK's largest bonfire.
To explain all this, I suggested holding a sheet of newspaper by it's top corners, setting the bottom edge alight with a lighter and timing how long it takes to burn your hands. Then try to set the wallpaper alight in the same way and burn it off a similar area of the lounge wall.
Answer 1, 7 seconds...... Answer 2, a couple of hours and no flame once the lighter is taken away.

 

The thing that infuriated me so much it that Brussels interfered with our building regulations so much, particularly the red tape and administration.
As a result, developers could appoint their own surveyors to certify their work. A clear conflict of interest.
The second example is that surveyors can practice anywhere in within the EU.

2 years ago, I was asked to give an example of how this could go wrong.
You can only imagine their response to my 2 word answer. "GRENFEL TOWER".
It took an official enquiry a couple of years and a few million pounds to bury what I have just mentioned in 1,200 pages of inaccurate, irrelevant and meaningless waffle.
Even blaming the cladding was not the answer. The true answer was if you are going to use it, don't install it in such a way that you are building the UK's largest bonfire.
To explain all this, I suggested holding a sheet of newspaper by it's top corners, setting the bottom edge alight with a lighter and timing how long it takes to burn your hands. Then try to set the wallpaper alight in the same way and burn it off a similar area of the lounge wall.
Answer 1, 7 seconds...... Answer 2, a couple of hours and no flame once the lighter is taken away.

 

If you want information on the process of censorship, first pick a country with pervasive censorship of the internet. From your posting to introduce this thread, you seem to be interested in the US.

The US has slelective censorship. The US is a poor example, more extensive than Canada's, but not even in the top 50 in the world of internet censors. If you really want to know about censorship, you ought to look at how it's done in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Russia, or China. The only two countries with pervasive censorship of the internet in the Western Hemisphere are Cuba and Venezuela.

Seriously, pick a country, but pick a good one. There's plenty of information on how it's done, but it's all country-by-country, and the US would be a poor example. There just isn't enough censorship to make it interesting. Norway has a very specific approach involving screening metadata, but it may not provide the kind of censorship you're intending to put in place where you are.

The whole notion of "censoring free speech on the internet" is a myth, because there never was free speech on the internet. North Koreans had every form of speech censored before the internet even existed. Free speech on the internet isn't something that was taken away from them, because they never had it.

 

The Domain Name Register is one way and I'll have to research that method. Whomever you pay to get a domain name can shut you down? This does not sound like it supports free speech.
There is more than one way to censor speech and it does not have to be directly done or even have the same intentions.
I don't think anyone can understand the value of free speech and not notice how we are being censored in the U.S. Some individuals believe that they benefit from censorship and or are in denial of it for their own benefit.

-Corruption:My own working definition of corruption is 'Someone that uses an entity or mechanism , that is used to deceive the intentions of it's operator' , Or they otherwise exploit the weak.

List of entities that are popularly accepted as being corrupted
-Politicians
-Police
-Clergy
-Etcetera .....
The News should be added to this list.

A tool does not have to be owned to use it. A hoax can be used by anyone and has no owner besides the entity that is currently using it. So anyone can use it.
-Politicians should represent the individual
-Police should protect you.
-The Clergy should not molest you.
-The News should be a source of facts. Not fact check or compete with other sources of facts.

I believe it was the U.S Pentagon that coined the phrase 'Conspiracy Theory'. This was to their advantage. It's not the incumbent source of facts like 'the news' is.

I saw a video on utube that made a comparison that the 'news is not elected'. I think it's in this vid



So if you do not repeat what the news states you are a 'Conspiracy Theorist' and not a news person.News is news and a conspiracy is a conspiracy.

A mechanism of corruption can just fall into their lap. It could be used to take the pressure off of the CCP for a slow GDP rate. It could be used to create a police state or to do a test and or simulation of a police state like the Jade Helm 15 incident. For the news sources ,it could just be the next big and upcoming 'product' to sensationalize and sell advertising with or to hold onto the reign of 'news source' over the competition. The news does not have to believe in the news that they present. The object of 'news' can be real or imaginary. Does reading the book 1984 by Georg Orwell make you make you incompetent to judge your surroundings? What would CNN say about this?

So I'm saying that the news sources are no better than a dog running after a stick and bringing it back again to be thrown again. They have NO moral or ethical responsibility to the individual and only serve to be the incumbent source of facts that guide you through life so that the advertisers will use them.

The 'NEWS' does not challenge the Governments 'facts'. They distribute what the government wants you to believe.

 

As manifestos-in-development go, yours is all over the board. In addition, the phrases "I don't think," "I believe," and "my own working definition" are red flags for a pervasive pattern of self-deception.

Sticking to the facts and using dictionaries produced by professional lexicographers would be good starting points for you. The thoughts that you've shared in this thread are scattered, randomly ordered, and they neither follow a clear path nor lead to a credible conclusion.

If your postings on the internet have been censored, and if CNN isn't begging you to host 4 hours per day of air time, you should apply a more critical eye to the information you're offering and to how you present it. I like a good conspiracy theory, but the key is "good." It would take considerable effort to turn your working manifesto into something that a large number of people would be interested to know. That doesn't make it wrong, just unpresentable. Keep what is known, identify the factual basis for that knowldge, re-order it, and you might have news. As is, it isn't a vast conpiracy that is keeping you from hosting 4 hours per day on CNN or from having your writings posted everywhere on the internet you believe they should be posted.

Have a better product to offer or do a better job of offering what you have, and you'll find a better reception for your ideas.

This site is a good place for working it out, for refining your craft, for not getting censored. If you find yourself banned from this site, the cause and culprit won't be the US Department of Defense. Rather, the cause and culprit will be staring at you when you look in the mirror.

 

Sorry Zen but I’d like to put in some corrections because I hate the spreading of fake news and the way Brexit leavers refuse to actually discuss their views in the threads set aside for it only to spread lies in places that have not.

All the accusations have been show not to stand up to examination –and the ‘old EEC’ as is the EU are still a part of the European Project of 'ever closer union' that we signed up for. One of the myths pushed by leavers is that the European Project changed into something we had not signed up to but that is not correct.

At the time Zen is talking about both Britain and the Netherlands were part of the EU, and that is the thing different states in the EU can and could have different rules.

Due to Brexit the UK NOW has a lot more regulations and red tape.

As to bureaucrats it is now been said that we are now having to go annd employ far more bureaucrats to deal with trade with just the EU than the EU employs to organise trade with the 27 and the world.

*

And you can imagine my response because I gave it and you ran away because your arguments fell apart like a cheap suite

Brexit: the rotting corpse of a unicorn

*

Now if you wish to dispute my corrections and wish to discuss brexit you can come back to one of the Brexit threads you seem too afraid to enter.