YouTube Censors Anti-Jihadist News Source – Vlad TepesBlog


If you follow Counterjihad writers or blogs you probably are aware of the Vlad Tepes blog. (As an aside named for Vlad the Impaler who became the model for the Dracula legends but historically brutally resisted the brutality of Muslim Ottomans [Turkey] conquest and Islamization of Europe. What made Vlad notorious is he distributed brutality for Muslim brutality.)

 

Vlad the Impaler – historical portrait

 

The Vlad Tepes blog tends to focus on the actions of Islam (often reported as radical Islam) in Europe, but the blog occasionally takes a look elsewhere. Since the major Social Media platforms have been running Anti-Conservative/Anti-Counterjihad campaigns, the Vlad Tepes blog has become one of their targets by censoring Free Speech.

 

Counterjihadist Paul Sutliff has posted about Youtube censorship of the Vlad Tepes blog with screenshot examples and BitTube links to evaluate for yourself if the Vlad Tepes blog deserves censorship.

 

JRH 3/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

YouTube Censors Anti-Jihadist News Source – Vlad TepesBlog

 

By Paul Sutliff

March 19, 2019

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Youtube vs VladTepesBlog

 

In the beginning of February a coordinated reporting campaign against the YouTube channel of Vlad TepesBlog began. Simple examination of the filed complaints reveals the idiocy of the reporting. Vlad TepesBlog shared a few of the hundreds of their videos that were suddenly reported within a week.  The vast majority of what was on Vlad TepesBlog’s YouTube channel were news reports from foreign countries subtitled into English. Below are two examples of YouTube’s response to the reporting sent to Vlad TepesBlog.

 

Youtube to VladTepes

 

View here judge for yourself if this deserves an Adult Rating: https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmSmFBVZ8TkkLxj3EoWm1bF96P1e1tGEojpWstC8kzYpSA&channel=251530

 

Youtube to VladTepes 2

 

View here judge for yourself if this deserves an Adult Rating: https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmSomHDJakfvxdqeuvGoE4CQA9JAcraeydVYNKt9TnosaK&channel=251530

 

Is Google Politicizing viewership and subscriber numbers?

Vlad TepesBlog’s YouTube Channel had over 30,000 subscribers.  Their videos were not monetized as the goal was to get the truth out and not have it be thought that income would sway what was shared. One of Vlad Tepes Blog’s subscribers wrote to them that they were under attack by Google, because his subscription count was not increasing and appeared frozen. It became a talking point for months when the number was approximately 24,xxx for a few weeks. It then shot up to 30,000 within 6 weeks. Having posted several hundred videos Vlad TepesBlog had other concerns that YouTube was adjusting the viewership statistics.

 

Tested

Vlad TepesBlog works with Gates of Vienna sometimes. In this case he embedded his videos on the Gates of Vienna with YouTube videos averaging a daily viewership at YouTube of between 600 to 1600 views per day. Sometimes they might get as high as 3,000 to 4,000. This encouraged further curiosity at statistical manipulation by YouTube/Google. So Vlad TepesBlog did some work with Freezoxee.com a place he had ZERO subscribers, unlike YouTube where he had accumulated 30,000+. So the only people who saw the video were people who saw the social media ties to the site.

 

There were 15,000 to 30,000 views which over a several days. Vlad TepesBlog states that this count far exceeded the amount of viewers YouTube was reporting for the hundreds of videos on his channel over the same period time.

 

The frozen subscription count plus the low viewership counts made Vlad wonder if they are concerned about his actual influence. Influence? Yes! When a channel gets a lot of attention YouTube promotes it in various ways. Even individual videos get promoted due to high viewership. So was the attempt purposeful to limit their influence hence stopping videos from going viral?

 

Congressional leadership prior to the Democratic takeover of the House was pursuing a look into flagrant First amendment violations of these Social Media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for directly limiting the influence of persons who are Conservative and/or Anti-Jihadists.

 

Sadly, the mass reporting of VladTepesBlog and the forced closure of its channel show a huge flaw in the security measures of YouTube, and other Social Media platforms. That being the evident lack of

 

Due Process.

Due Process is what protects a person from false accusations and usually ferrets outs liars in a timely fashion. YouTube accepted complaints that videos with no violence or sexual themes should now be labeled and require age verification to view adult content. This implies that your daily news feed according to YouTube should be labeled Adult Content. This means no comments can be seen or written.

 

The worst problem here is that NO HUMAN CONTACT is possible! You can only appeal a decision with a form response that may or may not be read by a human.

 

Important Questions for YouTube

Are bots all that reviews complaints? Are there security measures in place to address mass reporting?  What is the process of review for an actual complaint before a label of Adult Content is applied? What happens if a reviewer shows bias or incompetence when reviewing content?

 

YouTube Does NOT CONSISTENTLY close Hate Channels

Social Media giants seem set on controlling messages to their platform. YouTube has been caught hosting content that promotes Anti-Semitism under the guise that it is Islamic. The Middle East Media Research Institute has caught several videos on YouTube and noted the names of the persons and the organizations posting Anti-Semitic content under these circumstances. Persons with platforms that have been exposed by MEMRI include Zafar Bangash, who leads the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT). ICIT has a YouTube Channel called the ICIT Digital Library.

 

Youtube ICIT Digital Library screenshot

 

Perhaps YouTube thinks this is acceptable because this channel only has 4,562 subscribers?

 

MEMRI also exposed Sheikh Omar Baloch. His promotion of Islamic Relief should be enough of a concern to remove his YouTube Channel. The Middle East Forum’s extensive expose of Islamic Relief’s connections to known terror entities and persons is more than enough to post a flagged warning of adult content! But as you can see Sheikh Omar Baloch’s channel still exists.

 

Youtube Shiekh Omar Baloch screenshot

 

There are far too many examples of this non-censorship of channels sponsored by persons connected to Anti-Semitism and Jihadi terrorism.

 

You have to ask how Google aka YouTube finds reason to justify keeping content that is connected to Anti-Semitism and terrorism, AND how are news feeds subtitled into English deemed offensive at all!

 

Yet YouTube claims it catches most of the hate and terror videos. It hosted Islamic State videos that the government had to request be taken down! Yet their own content reviewers seem to target persons who have influence and are sharing actual News coverage simply because the content reveals unpopular truths?

 

This past December YouTube made the news after closing 1.67 million channels and all of the 50.2 million videos associated with them. According to Reuters, YouTube claimed, “Nearly 80 percent of the channel takedowns [were] related to spam uploads. About 13 percent concerned nudity, and 4.5 percent child safety.”

 

Final Thoughts

Are we to believe news is now to be counted in the same category as spam, nudity, and child safety issues? But Anti-Semitic speech is protected if it is Muslim?

 

Let’s not forget the monetary value of good will. It doesn’t matter that Vlad TepesBlog was not asking for income. What matters was his influence grew because he was respected. That respect earned him a high subscription rate and a total viewership of all 1600+ videos in the millions. Vlad TepesBlog considers the action of closing their channel a fraud. The work portrayed was not porn, it was not a safety concern, it did not violate community standards, so the shutdown of his channel was an act of fraud.

 

While a formal apology and restoration of all the work of Vlad TepesBlog would be considered a good business strategy for YouTube, versus a lawsuit for alleging that news which was subtitled needed an Adult content rating.

 

Vlad TepesBlog now posts their work at http://Bit.Tube. They ask that you sign up and subscribe to their Channel here. Vlad TepesBlog continues to not ask for any monetary assistance. They only want you to have the truth and subscribing to their work helps them to get the word out!

____________________

Minor Editing by John R. Houk (via spellcheck)

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad homepage

 

Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff on Blog Talk Radio/Global Patriot Radio

 

Paul Sutliff: BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, and a Graduate Certificate in Intelligence Analysis from Henley-Putnam School of Strategic Security at North American University.

 

To request me as a speaker go to http://paulsutliff.com

 

Social Media Active War Against Conservatives


John R. Houk

© February 28, 2019

If you are a Conservative-oriented person active in posting and reading on various Social Media platforms, you are probably quite aware the current Social Media giants do more than lean Left. Those giants also have an agenda to promote all things and ideology Left. You probably have also realized part and parcel of that agenda is to PREVENT YOU — a Conservative — from being successful on their Social Media platforms. INDEED, this means censorship and/or banning.

 

On a personal level I have experienced Social Media Jail on Facebook and Google+. (Neither you nor I will need to worry about Google+ censorship/jail by early April because Google is shutting down the non-commercial usage of G+.)

 

I operate three blogs. More lately my flagship blog SlantRight 2.0 seems to be on the Facebook radar. Quite suspiciously Facebook has flagged SlantRight 2.0 shared posts as being against the platform’s community standards. This is interesting since I don’t engage in vulgarity, profanity and incitement to violence.

 

My subject matter promotes Conservative thought, is pro-Christian, Pro-Israel, Pro-Christian Zionist and to a Multiculturalist’s chagrin – I do not shy away from exposing the dark side of Islam both from that theopolitical faith’s own revered writings and current events. In full disclosure I am supportive of Biblical Morality which among other things places me in the present day politically incorrect side of criticizing all things same-sex. This kind of criticism has earned a special epithet from the Left known as homophobia. I am labelled a homophobe even though I condemn violence in any form against those practicing the various forms of homosexually. God Almighty will judge LGBTQ practitioner choices and not any human being and certainly not I. For that matter, there are probably many actions a Conservative should ask forgiveness to escape an end of the age Final Judgment including myself. (One of the awesome aspects of God’s Grace in Christ Jesus is Mercy for all humanity have fallen short due to sin. Mini path to personal Redemption:

 

God’s Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all [a]and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified [b]freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a [c]propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. [Romans 3: 21-26 NKJV])

 

Thank God there are Social Media platforms beginning to emerge as a result of the big-dog platforms skewing Left. And yet I’m not exactly an Internet guru and I have found my learning curve for using emerging platforms not always equal to usability. Hence as yet, I have a sense dissatisfaction of the more emerging Conservative-friendly platforms which may be more my problem with adapting to different formats. As the big-dog Social Media becomes more and more hostile toward Conservatives, I suspect I’ll have to make a greater effort to adapt.

 

I won’t mention the new Social Media I had an utter failure in using, but there are three that adaptability seems easier. GAB is a bit of an alternative to Twitter. You can post with 300 characters at GAB. But GAB has had server issues recently when a mass murderer was discovered to have used GAB, the server company used by GAB gave them the boot. GAB is up and running again with a new server.

 

MeWe seems to be taking off currently. MeWe is kind of a combo G+ and Facebook. So far though I have not figured out how to link to individual posts in a MeWe Group. Again, the problem might be my skill set more than a MeWe issue. Here is my MeWe Profile Page.

 

A Social Media platform I find extremely promising is USA Life. USA Life is modeled so much like Facebook, it may be the future Conservative alternative. Go to my USA Life Profile Page and become my friend.

 

I’ve noticed when I complain of Facebook censorship on the newer platforms, I’m beginning to get responses asking me why don’t I just abandon Facebook? One reason is I’m an old dog that doesn’t like to learn new tricks. Until censorship became a problem at Facebook, it seemed the most effective way to share my blog posts. I am thinking USA Life might actually become competitive to Facebook’s future. Until then I’ll keep protesting Facebook censorship as long as the Facebook despots allow me to share. I suspect a day will come when Facebook despots will ban me for good.

 

Along the lines of censorship and banning, I was conversing with a Counterjihad author (due to the potential of censorship I hesitate to share the name). We spoke of our mutual censorship experiences on Facebook. He provided some insight on Conservative usage on Facebook.

He senses that above Facebook algorithms digitally hunting down Conservatives, he believes there are people among your friend lists who lean Left or are downright Liberal trolls who make it their objective to report your Conservative content as offensive. Whether or not it is actually offensive matters little. There is no recourse to rebut a false report with Facebook.

 

The suggestion is to go through your friend list and delete suspicion looking friends. Check out their views from their posts. If you determine a friend leans Left, that person can be suspected of reporting your Conservative content. Delete them.

 

Below are some posts exposing Social Media Platforms with a Left-Wing anti-Conservative agenda and their methods.

 

JRH 2/28/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*****************

[Hat Tip: Islamisthecultofsin on G+ Group We the deplorables dated Feb 26, 2019]

VIDEO: YouTube’s Community Guidelines System Is Garbage

 

Posted by Acts17Apologetics

Published on Feb 26, 2019

 

Earlier today, Tommy Robinson was banned from Facebook and Instagram. YouTube won’t be far behind. YouTube is removing more and more content based on false flags. Videos that contain absolutely no hate speech are being removed as hate speech, and creators that haven’t violated any rules or guidelines are receiving strikes and having their privileges (e.g. livestreaming) revoked. YouTube’s Community Guidelines strike system is pure garbage. YouTube is also punishing content creators for comments left on their videos. Perhaps the YouTube Creator Academy can address these problems.

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++

 

FACEBOOK INSIDER GOES PUBLIC: ‘SUPPRESSION’ FOR CONSERVATIVES

Admits ‘special features’ used to ‘deboost’ traffic during elections

 

WND Writers

February 27, 2019

WND

 

facebook-logo-phone-pixabay

 

A Facebook insider has confirmed the social-media giant discriminates against conservatives through software manipulation, using “special features” to “deboost” their traffic, especially near elections.

 

The former employee of the Big Tech firm now works with James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, which released a video of her testimony.

 

Youtube Version of Project Veritas VIDEO: Facebook Insider Leaks Docs; Explains “Deboosting” “Troll Report” & Political Targeting in Interview

 

[In case Youtube removes video or Project Veritas account, video can be watched HERE.]

[Posted by Project Veritas

Published on Feb 27, 2019

 

Be Brave. Do Something: https://www.projectveritas.com/brave/

 

See the documents: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/02/27/facebook-insider-leaks-docs/

 

Project Veritas has obtained and published documents and presentation materials from a former Facebook insider. This information describes how Facebook engineers plan and go about policing political speech. Screenshots from a Facebook workstation show the specific technical actions taken against political figures, as well as “[e]xisting strategies” taken to combat political speech.

 

READ THE REST]

 

She was a content review analyst for the intellectual property department, dealing with copyright and trademark claims.

 

As part of her work, she noticed some odd things on various accounts.

 

For example, one of the company’s engineers, Danny Ben David, had created an item called “actiondeboostlivedistribution” and was attaching it to accounts belonging to conservatives.

 

The insider said the obvious intent was to prevent distribution of that particular page or video.

 

It was one of the “methods of suppression,” she said.

 

It was done by disabling routine features on the page such as notifications.

 

“I would see it on several different conservatives pages,” she said, noting pages for Mike Cernovich, Steven Crowder and the Daily Caller.

 

She also pointed out Facebook was doing the throttling and even taking down material without letting the user know.

 

The insider noted company CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s claim to Congress, “We want to make sure we have the widest possible expression.”

 

He said he didn’t want his company acting on the political ideology of content.

 

But the former Facebook employee said that’s exactly what is not happening.

 

Project Veritas tried to obtain comment from David, who refused.

 

Another Facebook employee behind the campaign was Seiji Yamamoto, who wrote internally about his “news feed reduction strategy.”

 

He was concerned about “hate speech” but said there’s “quite a bit of content near the perimeter of hate speech that we need to address as well.”

 

Yamamoto described it as speech that “offends.”

 

Facebook, the report explained, also targets right-leaning individuals and organizations by labeling terms they use as offensive. One example was “MSM,” for mainstream media.

 

Yamamoto also refused to comment to Project Veritas.

 

The strategy includes “drastically limited bandwidth,” auto logouts for users and posts that “fail to upload.”

 

“They believe the election of Donald Trump was a fluke, it shouldn’t have happened,” the insider said, so Facebook is now trying to “influence elections.”

 

The company internally even discussed ratting out people it considers offensive by notifying everyone in their friends network.

 

“Fear of being outed … is what regulates behavior in real life and we should reintroduce that to the online world,” the company’s internal discussion noted.

 

Project Veritas posted online documents supporting the insider.

 

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said that to expose dishonesty and censorship in big tech companies, he will be relying upon more insiders, informants and leakers in the future.

 

“Our future depends on those who are willing to give up everything for what they believe.”

 

“When approached for comment, author and filmmaker Mike Cernovich said the troubling issue is that Facebook could just ‘make stuff up’ about people through these systems. ‘Facebook, or an individual at Facebook, has the unilateral power to create false allegations against someone he or she doesn’t like. The person accused not only can’t do anything about the allegation, they don’t even have an idea the allegation was made,’ said Cernovich,” Project Veritas said.

++++++++++++++

 

Facebook bans Tommy Robinson, falsely claiming he calls for violence against Muslims

 

By ROBERT SPENCER

FEB 26, 2019 4:00 PM

Jihad Watch

 

A Muslim activist in the UK is claiming credit for this:

 

However, Tommy Robinson says: “…the reasons they’ve given are just complete lies. They’re saying I incited violence and that I openly called for violence against Muslims, that’s just a lie. If that was the case then they could show evidence of messages where I’d said that but I never have.”

 

Whatever you may think of Tommy Robinson, fascists such as Mohammed Shafiq are not going to stop with him. It will soon be impossible to voice any opposition to jihad mass murder or Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others on any social media platform. Then the jihad will be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded, which is the ultimate goal of all these efforts to silence critics of jihad terror.

 

Tommy Robinson Intimidated by Police

 

“Tommy Robinson Banned from Facebook, Instagram,” by Oliver JJ Lane, Breitbart, February 26, 2019:

 

Facebook has banned British citizen journalist and street organiser Tommy Robinson from its platforms, including Instagram, in a move that comes days after he released a new documentary exposing what he claimed to be dishonest practise at establishment media giant BBC.

 

The social media giant claimed in a statement published Tuesday that Tommy Robinson’s own Facebook page, which had around one million ‘likes’ before deletion, “has repeatedly broken [Facebook community] standards, posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims. He has also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organized hate.”

 

Facebook claimed the move “is not a decision we take lightly.”

 

Responding to the ban, English Defence League founder turned citizen journalist Tommy Robinson told Breitbart London: “…the reasons they’ve given are just complete lies. They’re saying I incited violence and that I openly called for violence against Muslims, that’s just a lie. If that was the case then they could show evidence of messages where I’d said that but I never have.

 

“This is continued censorship which we all knew was coming but its been done instantly because of my documentary which exposed the establishment working with Hope not Hate, working with the BBC in order to destroy my name to the nation. When I exposed what they were doing they’ve put down the pressure to completely delete me from the internet. This has to show people the levels they’re gonna go to silence any opposition to mass migration and the Islamisation of this nation.”

 

Robinson’s removal from the platform is only the latest in a series of bans targeting the campaigner in recent years. He was de-platformed by Twitter in May 2018, banned from receiving payments by Paypal in November of that year, and had Youtube videos blocked from earning revenue in January 2019.

 

Mr Robinson told Breitbart London that he would be working on his own mobile app for live streaming after his removal from several social media sites.

 

It is not clear what actions were taken by Mr Robinson’s social media page in the recent past to cause Facebook’s decision to remove him now, but the move does come just days after he released an exposé documentary claiming to reveal underhanded dealings at British state broadcaster the BBC. In the hour-long film, which Robinson uploaded to his Facebook page, it is alleged the BBC collaborated with far-left activist organisation HOPE Not Hate to create what was apparently called a “Tommy Takedown”.

 

Robinson’s film debuted at a protest he held in Manchester, England, outside the offices of the BBC where the Panorama documentary series is produced. Thousands are reported to have attended the heavily-policed event.

 

In the film, top BBC documentary maker John Sweeney can be seen being confronted by Robinson with undercover footage of him making apparently racist and classist statements. It is believed at least some of the claims and counterclaims between Mr Robinson, the BBC, and HOPE Not Hate may yet be contested in court.

 

Responding to the ban, Tommy Robinson ally and UKIP leader Gerard Batten said the rise of censorship showed the nation was headed towards a “dark place.” He said: “Without any explanation whatsoever, the personal Facebook accounts of key UKIP members and Tommy Robinson have been removed….

_________________________

Social Media Active War Against Conservatives

John R. Houk

© February 28, 2019

_______________________

YouTube’s Community Guidelines System Is Garbage

 

From Acts17Apologetics About Page:

 

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.” ~Acts 17:24-25

_____________________

FACEBOOK INSIDER GOES PUBLIC: ‘SUPPRESSION’ FOR CONSERVATIVES

 

© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
_______________________

Facebook bans Tommy Robinson, falsely claiming he calls for violence against Muslims

 

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries.

 

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

 

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

 

Begin Anti-Censorship Movement


Conservatives & Counterjihadists UNITE to Battle Leftist Censors

John R. Houk

© August 21, 2018

 

Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones is facing a ban from all quadrants of Social Media, Prager U is being censored by Facebook and Youtube, and more. These appear to be the main culprits that hate Conservative ideology so much that they direct wholesale bans, shadow bans and temporary jail which is essentially a suspension of service for a period of time:

 

  • Facebook

 

  • Google

 

  • Twitter

 

  • Youtube (Google owned)

 

I myself have experienced the jail-privilege from Facebook and Google (specifically from G+) several times. As of this writing, G+ is preventing even a “request” to “join” any G+ Community. As a test I even withdrew from a couple of low-traffic Communities, then I tried to put in a couple of “ask to join” requests. Each time a little banner-box pops up telling me there was an error and try again later.

 

I’ve been trying later for weeks now and the error message still pops up.

 

Here is a list of Conservatives censored one way or the other from 3/4/18 Gateway Pundit:

 

Young Cons: Extremely popular conservative news site and received millions of daily readers during the election.  The website received nearly all of its traffic from Facebook. Since 2016 Facebook shut down stories to Young Cons.  Each algorithm change meant less traffic for the popular website.  YoungCons was blacklisted by Facebook and struggles to maintain readers.  The site regularly switches domains to save traffic.

 

SarahPalin.com: With over 4 million fans one of the popular conservative pages on Facebook until Facebook blocked all traffic to the website.  The page was forced to change the domain to save traffic numbers.

 

Right Wing News:  Right Wing News grew to an enormous website in the past few years thanks its popularity on Facebook. In July of 2015, in just a week, the Right Wing News Facebook page reached 133 million people. Because conservatives were sharing content they were interested in, Right Wing News (with 3.6 million Facebook likes) was driving the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in America.  Since the 2016 election Facebook blocked traffic to the website.  Owner John Hawkins announced he was shutting down the website in January.

 

Western Journalism: Newsweek reported that the site has grown from receiving 1,000 page views a day in 2009[3] to more than 1 million during 2016. The website was averaging around 6 million page views a day according to Quantcast during the election. Today it is down to around 500,000 a day. Western Journalism was blacklisted by Facebook.

 

The Gateway Pundit: TGP was ranked as the 4th most influential conservative news source during the 2016 election. The site in 2016 received nearly a third of its traffic from Facebook. This past weekend Facebook blocked all traffic from recent stories to the website. TGP advertised with Facebook and is another top conservative website blacklisted by the company. TGP is also shadow-banned by Google and frequently attacked and smeared by the liberal media.

 

President Trump Facebook page:  A recent algorithm change has caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%. In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement, reported Breitbart’s Alum Bokhari.

 

Independent Journal Review:  A massive conservative website based on Facebook audience.  The Independent Journal Review (IJR) terminated a number of its employees on Thursday, leaving an unclear future for the millennial-focused conservative website that has recently faced a declining audience.  IDF was also shadow-banned and blacklisted.

 

Breitbart.com:  Breitbart was the most influential conservative news source in 2016 with a massive audience.  Since the election Breitbart is constantly targeted and smeared by far left operations.  Breitbart advertising was targeted by Sleeping Giants and other Soros sites.

 

InfoWars:  Infowars is another dominant conservative site with enormous traffic.  After several years of video production and tens of thousands of video YouTube gave Infowars its third strike this week and threatens to shut the YouTube Channel down.

 

Rightside Broadcasting: This YouTube Channel had millions of views before the election.  Since 2016 YouTube has shadow-banned all of their videos.  YouTube has classified its videos of President Trump at a rally as hate speech.  YouTube has demonetized hundreds of its videos.  YouTube hides its videos.  Income for the site is down 95% since the election.

 

Natural News: A very prominent health website and the world’s top source on natural health. The site receives tens of thousands of readers every day. YouTube wiped out over 1,700 videos covering everything from nutrition, natural medicine, history, science and current events.

 

From a reader: You Tube deleted Natural News Channel. It’s conservative and full of info on health, too. I took a screen shot. I’m very upset. My husband has aggressive cancer from. Agent Orange and I depended on this channel for his diet among other things. The man, Mike Adams, is literally a genius, and I mean literally, and he is very conservative.

 

Prager Report:  PragerU, a conservative educational site, is suing Google and its subsidiary YouTube, accusing the video site of censoring its online videos because of their political leanings.  YouTube has banned several of its videos including segments on abortion and Islam.   Prager U has a massive conservative audience in the millions.

 

Pamela Geller.com Pamela is well-known for speaking out against radical Islam.  ISIS has threatened to behead her several times.  During the election PG had over 100,000 daily views from Facebook.  Today Facebook has shut down most of her traffic.  Her website suffered serious losses in revenue since the election.

 

Diamond and Silk: Pro-Trump YouTube sensations have a suit against YouTube. The Trump supporters announced in August 2017 that 95% of their videos have been demonetized on YouTube.

 

This list is derived from March 2018. Indeed, I just receive an email Alert from ACT for America that Youtube has pulled videos. The ACT email states according to Youtube rules, this video removal counts as a strike. The email doesn’t specify how many strikes have been placed on ACT for America, but the rules state three-strikes and the Youtube Channel is removed.

 

The most recent video related to reporting on the Islamic cult compound being busted for child abuse and training kids to be school shooters among other things. Youtube called the video report HATE SPEECH.

 

ACT for America began a petition to protest the Youtube action. Other than validation for ACT choices, I am unsure how much effect such a petition will have.

 

What needs to happen is to have Conservative and Counterjihad writers and organizations ban [maybe “ban” is the wrong word for this instance – maybe “group] together, perhaps with some kind of joint-petition with the goal of influencing legislation.

 

Below is the ACT email Alert about unjust Youtube censorship.

 

JRH 8/21/18

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Help Us Fight Big Tech Censorship!

 

Sent by Brigitte Gabriel

Sent 8/21/2018 12:11 PM

Sent from ACT for America

 

Big tech companies are using their power and influence to censor the conservative voice. ACT for America has experienced this first hand over the last few weeks.

 

First, YouTube removed an ACT for America video that dated all the way back to 2012 – in the process of removing the video, YouTube applied a “strike” to our account. If an account receives three strikes in a 90-day period, the account is expelled from YouTube. This is problematic because YouTube is the ONLY major platform to share videos from and if ACT for America were to lose our YouTube channel – we would be at a serious disadvantage to other organizations.

 

Youtube Attention Warning

 

Most recently, I called Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, the terrorist who was just charged for training young children in New Mexico to shoot up schools, “sick and depraved.” Calling a terrorist who takes pleasure in training young children to kill people “sick and depraved” should not be controversial. However, Facebook did not agree. Within just a few hours of posting about the accused terrorist, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, my account was suspended for 24 hours for violating Facebook’s policy regarding “hate speech.” Yes, that’s right – I was suspended from Facebook for calling a terrorist “sick and depraved.”

 

Fortunately, Twitter did not find my post to violate their hate speech policies – you can take a look at my post below:

 

Screenshot Brigitte Gabriel report on depraved Muslim Terrorist

 

That’s the reality we live in right now with big tech companies. Kathy Griffin can pose with a decapitated head of our President and receive no punishment, but if I call a terrorist sick and depraved I get suspended for hate speech. These Orwellian “hate speech” policies are being implemented with the explicit purpose to silence conservative voices.

 

Click below to sign our petition demanding big tech companies to stop censoring conservatives!

 

SIGN OUR PETITION

 

This is about protecting our First Amendment right to express ourselves freely. I hope you will stand with me in this fight!

 

For Freedom,

 

Brigitte Gabriel

Founder & Chairman

ACT for America

++++++++++++++++++

[Blog Editor: Here is a video of Natural News Editor fuming over Youtube & Facebook censorship. The roughly 44-minute post uses the REAL.VIDEO platform no doubt to avoid Youtube censors. The thing is I’m not sure if the embed code will work on my blogs (especially WordPress). If that occurs click the embedded link within the title.]

 

REAL.VIDEO: Mike Adams statement on President Trump’s censorship warning to tech giants

https://www.real.video/5823898284001

 

Posted by REAL video (official)

Published: 8/18/18

++++++++++++++++

Zolnar Report REAL.VIDEO

 

REAL.VIDEO: Finally, President Trump Calls Out The Social media Giant’s, Now What?

https://www.real.video/5823884067001

 

Posted by zolnareport.com

Published: 8/18/18

 

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/18/donald-trump-condemns-social-media-companies-for-biased-censorship/

______________________

Begin Anti-Censorship Movement

Conservatives & Counterjihadists UNITE to Battle Leftist Censors

 

John R. Houk

© August 21, 2018

___________________

Help Us Fight Big Tech Censorship!

 

© 2018 ACT Content LLC. 

 ACT for America Education, Inc. is a registered 501 c (3) organization.

 

ACT for America is the nation’s largest national security grassroots organization with over 1 million members dedicated to keeping America safe and it’s citizens secure from all threats foreign & domestic. Click here to support our efforts.

 

About Founder Brigitte Gabriel

 

Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders.

 

She has addressed the United Nations, Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others.

 

In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America.

 

Ms. Gabriel is Founder and Chairman of ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. with One million members dedicated to preserving national security and promoting Western values. She is a NYT best-selling author of three books the latest is “RISE” In Defense of Judeo Christian Values and Freedom.

 

Ms. Gabriel was knighted in Europe in 2016 by the Knights of Malta, for her international work on fighting terrorism and standing up for Western Judeo-Christian Values. She joins a long list of knights including former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Nelson Mandela, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, and others.

 

Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English, and Hebrew.

 

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech


Voltaire on Free Speech & Rulers

Intro to ‘European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

Edited by John R. Houk

May 3, 2016

 

I just finished an anti-Multiculturalist post inspired by the Gatestone Institute that focused on the EU hammering Counterjihad journalist Ingrid Carlqvist (of Sweden) and a bit of fund raising – “Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s Culture”. As I was doing my daily Internet surfing I discovered another Gatestone Institute article by Soeren Kern exposing the fact that the big dogs of Social Media are in complete agreement with the European Union on squelching Free Speech exposing the dark side of Islam which is currently showing up Muslim refugees and immigrants.

 

The Social Media giants spoken of in the article:

 

 

 

 

  • Microsoft: Bill Gates and Paul Allen are the original names connected to Microsoft, but then Steve Ballmer became the shot caller for the computer giant amassing billions of dollars in fortune (as in over $20 billion with a “B”). Apparently Satya Nadella the big dog now. Microsoft influence in Social Media is its fingerprint on PCs and the Internet. Here’s a decent synopsis of their influence:

 

… Microsoft are almost expected to have an enviable social media presence. They have led the way to the future, so social media is an important aspect of their strategy as a trailblazing company that creates and innovates. They have created web browsers, operating systems, office applications and web services almost dominating the internet and giving people the ability to be immersed into a technological world. (How Microsoft Uses Social Media [CASE STUDY]; By CASEY FLEISCHMANN; LinkHumans.com)

 

Interestingly the owners of YouTube which is Google, are not talked about by Soeren Kern. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University:

 

After the company’s IPO in 2004, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt requested that their base salary be cut to $1. Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries were turned down, primarily because their main compensation continues to come from owning stock in Google. (Google; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 31 May 2016, at 22:47.)

 

Apparently “Google” is now an amalgam multiple corporations with a publically held corporation at the top being Alphabet:

 

Silicon Valley – and Wall Street – have a new king. Alphabet, the company formerly known as Google, looks set to become the world’s largest publicly traded company …

 

 

Commercially, when we say Alphabet, we really mean Google. The old company still represents the vast majority of Alphabet’s revenues, and almost all of its major businesses (including search, maps, YouTube, advertising and Android) still sit under Google and its new chief executive, Sundar Pichai. The rest of Alphabet may represent the bets on the industries of the future but for today, it’s Google that pays the bills. (How Alphabet became the biggest company in the world; By Alex Hern; The Guardian; 2/2/16 03.08 EST)

 

Wikipedia on Alphabet Inc.:

 

Alphabet Inc. (commonly known as Alphabet, and frequently informally referred to as Google) is an American multinational conglomerate created in 2015 as the parent company of Google and several other companies previously owned by Google.[5][6][7][8][9] The company is based in Mountain View, California and headed by Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, with Page serving as CEO and Brin as President.[10] The reorganization of Google into Alphabet was completed on October 2, 2015.[11] Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include GoogleCalicoGVGoogle CapitalX, and Google Fiber. Some of the subsidiaries of Alphabet have altered their names since leaving Google—Google Ventures becoming GV, Google Life Sciences becoming Verily and Google X becoming just X. Following the restructuring Page became CEO of Alphabet while Sundar Pichai took his position as CEO of Google.[5][6] Shares of Google’s stock have been converted into Alphabet stock, which trade under Google’s former ticker symbols of “GOOG” and “GOOGL”.

 

The establishment of Alphabet was prompted by a desire to make the core Google Internet services business “cleaner and more accountable” while allowing greater autonomy to group companies that operate in businesses other than Internet services.[6][12] (Alphabet Inc.; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 1 June 2016, at 13:41.)

 

In the 21st century, money is power. People this is a lot of power pushing Multicultural ideology to the detriment of Western culture in Europe and America.

 

JRH 6/3/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

 

By Soeren Kern

June 3, 2016 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.

 

  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”

 

  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.

 

  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

 

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

 

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

 

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

 

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

 

The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

 

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:

 

“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

 

“The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.

 

“While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.

 

“The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:

 

  • “The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.

 

  • “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

  • “The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of “trusted reporters” in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that “promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”

 

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:

 

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

 

Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU’s plans “rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion.” It added:

 

“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber Jihadists.’ They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being ‘banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'”

 

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:

 

“Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.”

 

In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:

 

“Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.

 

“It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.

 

“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”

 

A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that “we do not have confidence in the ill-considered ‘code of conduct’ that was agreed.” A statement warned:

 

“In short, the ‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.

 

“This means that this ‘agreement’ between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.”

 

Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live.”

 

Even before signing on to the EU’s code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

 

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

 

In January 2016, Facebook launched an “Online Civil Courage Initiative” aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward “fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet.”

 

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook’s assault on “racist” speech “appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.” He wrote:

 

“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.’ This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

 

Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:

 

“It’s still a matter of censorship. They decide what’s acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can’t criticize Arab governments anymore?”

 

In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:

 

“After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone’s readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.

 

“Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.”

 

Facebook Censorship & Ingrid Carlqvist

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”

 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

 

_______________________________

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

Blog Editor: If GI asks me to remove this post I will comply. If you wish to share anything other than a link you had better GI permission.