The NYT Supports Online Censorship
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
The self-styled newspaper of record finds new ways to disgrace itself.
Instead of condemning online censorship, a flagrant First Amendment violation, it supports banning views conflicting with its own.
Disgracefully headlining "Facebook Tackles Rising Threat: Americans Aping Russian Schemes to Deceive," a litany of disinformation and Big Lies followed.
The Times: "In 2016, before the presidential election, state-backed Russian operatives exploited Facebook and Twitter to sway voters in the United States with divisive messages."
"Now, weeks before the midterm elections on Nov. 6, such influence campaigns are increasingly a domestic phenomenon fomented by Americans on the left and the right."
Fact: Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia or any other foreign nation interfered in America's electoral process through social media or any other means.
Claims otherwise were fabricated, part of systematic Russia bashing, ignoring longstanding US meddling in foreign elections worldwide.
Fact: So-called "influence campaigns" the Times cited are views diverging from the official narrative it features exclusively on its pages, suppressing what readers need to know - especially on geopolitical issues, along with anything about Russia and other nations the US targets for regime change.
The Times: "(D)omestic sites are emulating the Russian strategy of 2016 by aggressively creating networks of Facebook (and Twitter) pages and accounts — many of them fake — that make it appear as if the ideas they are promoting enjoy widespread popularity…"
Fact: The fabricated Times accusation is all about supporting online and media censorship - more evidence of its opposition to free expression and disregard for journalism the way it's supposed to be.
Actions by Facebook, Twitter, and other tech giants aim to suppress alternative views. Takedowns of pages and accounts are unrelated to reasons cited.
Supporting FB, the Times falsely claimed activity it targeted aims "to root out election interference." None exists by foreign nations. No evidence indicates otherwise. Accusations against Russia are fabricated.
FB's security head Nathaniel Gleicher claim that accounts and pages taken down were for violating company rules was a bald-faced lie - his remark code language for targeting popular content conflicting with the official narrative.
Republicans, undemocratic Dems, right-wing think tanks, and major media like the Times are the main sources of disinformation and fake news in America and other Western societies - not pages and accounts taken down by FB and Twitter, not web sites targeted by algorithms to greatly diminish their traffic.
How did the Times learn names of targeted pages and accounts? FB didn't identify them.
Was the Times report coordinated with FB's Gleicher? He spoke privately with the broadsheet ahead of what it published.
The same goes for the neocon/CIA house organ Washington Post. Along with the Times, it posted screenshots of selected banned pages. Gotten from where - from FB directly the only way.
Was WaPo's article headlined "Facebook purged over 800 US accounts and pages for pushing political spam" coordinated with the company?
Did the Times and WaPo collude with FB against fundamental First Amendment rights?
They include speech and media freedoms, especially views critical of government policies.
The right to express them unobstructed is what freedom is all about - a fundamental value the Times, WaPo, and other major media oppose.
The issue isn't whether views are right or wrong. It's the right to express them freely without obstruction or other interference.
Times and WaPo support for FB takedowns also relates to their bottom line interests.
Less or weakened online competition could translate to increased broadsheet profits.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at email@example.com.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."