Censorship is Peace & Patriotism is Terrorism II
Twitter Files
(Original Post: December 19th, 2022)
In February of 2016, Marie Helen Maras briefed the Foreign Press on collaboration between social media companies and other "institutions"
Today everyone is up in arms regarding the Twitter Files that Elon Musk has exposed, but the real question is when did this begin? When did agents of our government decide they were allowed to collude with private business to incentivize censorship online? Why has government not yet acted against these companies for Anti Trust violations? Applications being de-platformed on Apple and Google illustrates this perfectly. Now the interview with Marie Helen Maras will add to the example of collusion between our government and social media companies.
In this interview Marie Helen Maras , member of the United Nations and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Berkley, debriefs the foreign press in 2016 in regards to the need to foster public/private partnership between institutions, government. and social media companies while making sure the public does not know about these institutions working together. The kind of partnership that if the public were to find out, they would be outraged and realize the government was violating their rights by doing so.
In 2016 the government stated concern regarding ISIL back in 2016, present day speaking out online can get you banned for exercising your first amendment right and branded a Trump supporting conspiracy theorist. This was the plan starting in 2016, these agencies understood that if they did not foster these relationships the reign of the deep state would be over. No worries though, in 2016 Marie Helen Maras laid out the plan to gain control and incentivize the social media companies via tax breaks, meaning the American people are paying the social media companies to censor us and have been since 2016.
Marie Helen Maras States:
"Social media companies need to leverage a relationship with institutions law enforcement, private institutions, other government agencies, societal institutions, and the public at large to highlight failures of terrorist organizations, discourage operators/supporters, and delegitimize or discredit terrorist action. This can be done by highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions in actions and ideologies of terrorist organizations, coordinating responses and engage in practices continuously in a matter of greater response than today."
Since 2020 the American people have seen how government agencies, businesses. and social institutions came together to enforce a variety of COVID measures including social media who actively censored "disinformation" online. Never before done on such a massive scale. This was also done by the public at large using the techniques Maras discusses above, by highlighting inconsistences in data, contradicting what experts in various fields claimed regarding the virus, and attacking our overall conservative ideology. Conservative thinking became an act of domestic terrorism to those on the left.
A male reporter asks Maras," If we are going to remove users from social media for terrorist propaganda or hate speech, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THE DONALD TRUMP?". He further asks, Do we remove him under hate speech, terrorizing people, or radicalization? Marie Maras responded , " Hate speech and what qualifies as hate speech could warrant removal and this is something WE should be discussing with social media platforms".
Funny how only a few years later Donald Trump, our sitting president, was de-platformed on Twitter as a result of the January 6th incident.
The reporter further asks, "Why do we have terms of service on a platform if we do not enforce those terms of service?". Maras states this because, according to her, the social media platforms in 2016 were not doing enough to combat disinformation on social media". Maras agrees, but proceeds to say that social medias just recently added terrorism to their terms of service agreement.
A female reporter then states that terrorism is not new, since 9/11 government agencies have been using the American Patriot Act and NSA to monitor people all over the world. She is confused that terrorism now is being used on social media more than ever, she claims the US has harshly gone after many countries in the name of terrorism. The actual question she proposes is
"Why hasn't government (US Government) clamped down on social media companies yet?"
Marie Maras responds there are few things/acts now that violates US law. Three things that would be a violation of US law and be used to prosecute someone is incitement of violence, communication of a true threat, and providing material support to terrorism for a foreign terrorist organization. The reporter follows up with, " So the US is not yet proactive in the United States". Maras summarizes that citizens have Freedom of Speech and "the existence of something online or support for a specific group is not illegal in this country". Again in 2021 our United States attorney general wrote a letter basically calling parents domestic terrorists. Saying something on social media about any polarizing topic could get you suspended or banned off many platforms. The platforms demonetized various businesses for reporting facts or expressing their opinion against our government. Yet in 2016, Maras clearly states how these practices would be illegal in the United States and protected under the First Amendment.
A third reporter states your asking for a greater dissemination of disinformation, than he asks,
"To stop the dissemination of disinformation your not exactly calling on legislation, why hasn't there been any legislation on that".
Maras states that they tried in 2015 to pass legislation, it included social medias companies responsibility to report terrorism content, but it did not pass. The third reporter follows up with because social media companies from Silicon Valley have lobbyists in Washington who said "Don't tread on our turf, yea". Maras agrees by continuously nodding her head up and down.
A fourth reporter Igor asks, "How many accounts have been taken off Twitter this year". Marie Maras responds about 100,000 this year (2016), but how many have gone up after being taken down. Igor then states one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, "how would you use the filter you discussed to separate the apples from the oranges?". He discusses the idea of filters and communications with service providers just dealing with terrorists while still allowing terrorism. Igor says, what Maras is proposing is stepping into a very gray area in a legal sense.
Marie Maras knew in 2016 how many people were being banned on Twitter. Which means in 2016 there was some sort of communication between Twitter and the US government on who was removed off their platform and why. Were their names and personal information provided in these reports? Why would Twitter actively report users who were removed from their platform?
Maras responds ," social media companies are already taking action and removing content that is against the terms of service, and they are doing that by utilizing other types of software programs to prevent abuse & harassment on these platforms". She goes on to say these filters go through previous tweets that amounted to abuse & harassment and blocking new tweets that have similar type of language. The first step for social media companies would be to design software to filter through language on social media platforms, what we are trying to do is make it more efficient for them to do so. Do these filters sound like the algorithms Facebook and Twitter users know and try and beat today?
Do you ever wonder why the public at large can't say or write certain terms online without fear of censorship? Well according to Maras in 2016 they wanted the platforms to adopt or integrate further software to make it more efficient for them to censor speech. Again sounding a lot like the algorithms we know today. Another reporter interjects questioning where the line of censorship is, how far will this filtering go, how do you know where to stop? A quick response from Maras is lets start with the extreme like the ISIL beheading videos and the statements from online users of "lets take up arms and kill everybody" the most extreme offenses and go from there. The point the journalist makes here was spot on. Who decides how far speech can be censored without it being a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Our government has yet to act against these companies for violations against the American people and businesses. Marie Maras firmly says,
"That's what I am saying, we have to start somewhere and doing nothing in this moment is getting us no where, we will be having the same conversation next year (2017)".
The debriefing of the international foreign press in 2016 is another example of the US government working towards a plan to be able to censor speech online. That plan has been methodically adopted not only through media but through all aspects of society. Think of COVID measures from the schools, hospitals, small businesses, government agencies, news outlets, to communities reporting on one another to ensure compliance of government measures, The control of social media affected the society at larger scale than ever in the United States using social media platforms dissemination of information police and the people attacking and reporting each other online for not sharing the same opinion.
For the first time regular people were banned or suspended due to their personal opinion and ideologies being shared online. It continues today, evolving into the point of censoring ourselves to not trigger the Twitter/FB Gods. We need to start pressuring our government to act in our interest. To protect our speech; especially when social media plays such a large role in our daily lives from business to personal matters. They control who gets a platform and who doesn't. Doesn't that sound like the Ministry of Truth. Let's not forget all the unelected bureaucrats in all these government agencies who played a pivotal role in designing of this plan.
Starting with Marie Helen Maras, I am sure Maras' future writings will be as telling as her past. I urge you to take a moment and read her past peer reviewed journals including . (2012). The Economic Costs and Consequences of Mass Communications Data Retention. or Case Commentary State of Ohio v. Ross Compton: Internet-Enabled Medical Device Data Introduced as Evidence of Arson and Insurance Fraud. But don't forget her sister is continuing to lead individuals in Ohio and throughout United States through her podcast claiming to be a "Grassroots movement" but I kindly disagree. Provide a Hero Character, Create Chaos, then Divide and Conquer.
But I'll sit here with heart shaped glasses sipping my tea. lol
Stay Focused Ohio.
