‘Linked’ … ‘Inappropriate’ … these are among the most sinister terms being used and abused by private and public sector pseudo-legitimate ‘government’ entities which are presently at war against you. Facebook gives us even more reason to fight against this, and against Facebook and Zuckerberg himself. Fortunately, the New Media revolution has occurred, and isn’t going away.
The consequences of this Kafkaesque slide into ‘gestures’ being tantamount to evidence, and actions taken against individuals without any actual due process and convictions, would surprise even Orwell.
And so, the US-based spying, censorship, and intel gathering website, Facebook, has unsurprisingly announced that it has removed more than 650 pages, groups and accounts allegedly linked to a “coordinated network” which shared political material. According to the site, the deleted data was administered by Russia and Iran.
This raises major questions, in their statement that the deleted data was ‘administered by Russia and Iran’. It also contradicts their own official rationale. Given that these countries with combined populations of over 220 million people, it is unclear therefore if the specific allegation, and subsequent action, was based on these pages, groups, and accounts being literally run by government offices of the governments in question. That much appears very much unlikely to be so.
Rather, this appears as a case of bias, discrimination, and national chauvinism – activists from Russia and Iran are apparently not allowed to administer Facebook pages and groups, is what we can deduce at this time, in the absence of evidence to corroborate Facebook’s claims.
FRN itself has long been the subject of Atlanticist attacks, Julian Assange noted that attacks identical to those made upon FRN by Facebook are coordinated by militarized vectors of Atlanticist power.
The criteria of a ‘coordinated network’ appears to contradict allegations of being ‘administered by Russia and Iran’. Are Facebook page administrations, who agree on a range of subjects, disallowed from sending each other inbox messages and ‘coordinating’ messages? Isn’t that what activists do?
The social network said, according to the Associated Press news agency, that it did not finalize the analysis of the material removed. Facebook also declined to detail how such a network operated by simply reporting that it has notified the UK and US governments as well as the US Treasury Department because of ongoing sanctions against Iran.
Click here to help support our work to fight against Facebook and internet censorship – support 100% Independent journalism at FRN. Our ask is a five dollar a month sustained pledge. Please consider it, every cent goes a long way.
This would seem to mean that there is not evidence of ‘government collusion’ with the Facebook page administrators and activists. Yet actions were taken anyway.
“There’s a lot we still do not know,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a conference call, quoted by the AP. Yet this was sufficient to shut the pages down.
The coordinated action was discovered after four investigations, three against Iran and one against Russia. But these ‘investigations’ were not not finalized.
The removal affected groups such as the “Liberty Front Press“, followed by 155,000 accounts and administrator of dozens of profiles on Instagram and Facebook. According to the social network, which claims to have arrived in Iran via site logs, IP addresses and administrator accounts, the group was ‘linked’ to Iranian state media. The first accounts were created in 2013 and published political content on the Middle East, the UK and the US, although the focus on the West has increased since last year, Facebook said.
This again raises the problematic and nebulous concept of ‘linked’. This is not a legal concept, nor does it have a clear definition in plain English. This slippery slope into ‘non-defined crimes’, ‘conviction through gestures’, mirrors the rise of the abuse of the phrase ‘inappropriate’. People can be ‘linked’ to ‘inappropriate’ ‘networks’, and face loss of work, reputation, and access to the virtual public sphere. Meanwhile, ‘linked’, ‘inappropriate’, and ‘networks’ are all ill defined gestures, which we have been conditioned to believe refer to something substantive, codified in law, definitive, and concrete, when in fact they are not.
Another case involved a group operating outside Iran with 813,000 followers. The group allegedly passed on political content about the Middle East, UK and US. The activities allegedly ‘linked’ to Iran would have yielded about $12,000 paid in advertising for the social network.
Already in the non-case of the accusations against Russia, Facebook said it had removed a group that tried to influence the elections in Syria and Ukraine. It was operated by ‘military intelligence agents’, according to the social network.
However, the term ‘agent’ is not synonymous with ‘officers’, even though in layman’s terms there is little distinction. An agent may be more like an asset, and to ascertain if one is an asset, and an asset may be acting independently. Rather they become an ‘agent’ if they are an ‘asset’ in mind’s-eye of the would-be accuser – who today is not even required to make any formal accusation. Under civilian rule, and not the corporate martial law that westerners live under, this would normally require some evidentiary process, where the accused had a right to respond to the accuser.
This is in itself, an allegation which, due to Facebook’s status as a private entity – though operating as a virtual public plaza – does not require further corroboration. The case for the ‘nationalization’ of Facebook grows by the second. And such a move would only mitigate the repression, and in the worst case, even give it further weight – as western governments themselves also increasingly lack credibility, fairness, and transparency. We’ve certainly reached a conundrum when citizens may have to self-organize using self-defense means where force itself is not ruled out, to bring significant and lasting change to the present impasse.
In truth, this Facebook is a US intelligence operation, run by the media-police wing of NATO, known as the Atlantic Council. FRN has exposed in the past how Facebook used to operate, and how it changed from tracking the development of trends, consumer needs, and new ideas, which were marketable to advertisers – and once realizing they could not control the cross-pollination of powerful ideas, decided to switch tracts and become a censorship enforcer.
What they fear is that communities of faith feel welcome and at-home in secular socialist and nationalist circles. They loath that radical and dissident academics are using Youtube and social media to directly reach out to, educate, and uplift those who, for many reasons, would not have otherwise been exposed to their ideas.
They cannot tolerate that the political language of the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ are cross-pollinating. They feel they must stop that the people – be they religious, libertarian, communist, Muslim, nationalist, politically agnostic, Christians, searchers, Hindus, truthers, believers, and political soldiers of all stripes – are over-coming the false and imposed discursive boundaries.
Even their own gatekeepers, just to retain the credibility required to keep that gate, have themselves had to dangerously admit too much, too soon, verifying for ‘normies’ those things which the rest of us have known for years, even decades.
FRN has been repeatedly targeted by the Atlantic Council, our editors personally smeared and ‘doxed’, our site under DDOS attacks from their proxies, and hit-pieces run against the FRN website through their ‘apparently civilian’ outlets like Vice News.
According to the Zuckerberg approved statement; “They are associated with the Inside Syria Media Center, which the Atlantic Council and other organizations have identified as [responsible for] secretly spreading pro-Assad content.”
“We are working closely with the US police in this investigation,” Facebook said in a post in its Press Room.
In conclusion, we can also point out the major fallacies involved in the above statement.
First, what does it mean to be ‘associated’ with the Inside Syria Media Center? And why is that media center a problem? Because it has ‘links’ to the Syrian or Russian government? What links, and if possible to define such links, how is that illegal?
Secondly, Assad is the legal, elected, and internationally recognized president of the nation of Syria. There are no formal, internationally recognized, finalized proceedings against the democratically elected leader of Syria. The country is in good standing at the United Nations, and until the US saw Syria as an obstacle to its designs for the region, Assad was considered a ‘moderate’. Modern Syria is a secular, democratic republic, with strong ties to global trade. There is no problem, except that it’s not what the US military wants, with ‘spreading pro-Assad content’. Do politicians and candidates, and world leaders, not have Facebook pages? Since when is this a policy that is enforced uniformly? In what ‘sense’ is this a crime?
Third, what do ‘US police’ have to do with the price of tea in China? These absurd ‘gestures’ at some ‘crime’ having been committed by millions of activists world-wide, are themselves so outrageous, that the public and international backlash against Facebook and its handlers will no doubt be extraordinary and cathartic.
These are critical times, and FRN implores its readers to stand-up for independent citizen journalism. We also stand for the right for national/corporate/synergy media companies around the world, whether BBC, CNN, or RT and PressTV to have a fair hearing and be accessible to all who want it.
Facebook, like the internet itself, has always allowed users to decide what they want to see, or don’t want to see. While being added to a group may happen without consent, leaving a group and not allowing an add-back has always been an option. Even if seeing an advertisement from an ‘inappropriate’ world leader or politician, or political movement, the Facebook user has always been allowed to mark these as ‘I don’t want to see this’, and the user will no longer see them.
These are times when active citizens, regardless of nationality, race, political creed, or religious persuasion, must stand together to expose this nightmarish and Orwellian use of phrases like ‘inappropriate’, ‘linked’, and other defamatory and, in fact empty gestures which are in turn used as the entire basis for this extreme censorship. The good news is, in some ways, we are already winning. Facebook has experienced a significant drop in users, in fact is in a state of free fall and collapse.
We humbly call upon our readers to understand that together, we have what it takes to take on this behemoth, these financiers, these imperialists, these globalists. FRN has, we hope it is understood, been a worthy part of this process, in getting much truth out to the public. It is a difficult job, one that takes tremendous time and commitment, against many obstacles and against many well financed and murderous adversaries. Those who know the FRN story know we’ve been not just algorithmically squelched, but have had Mossad and US intel agents, in person and in real-life, attempt to infiltrate, demoralize, defame, distract and derail, our little journalist brigade.
We’ve had very realizable death-threats made to us from Croatian ultra-nationalists and Ukrainian pravy-sektor types. We are located in Belgrade, right in the heart of the Balkans and the center of what will likely be the next major Ukraine-like conflict, as we have long forecasted.
We are forthright journalist and analysts showing the problem of empire. Please consider clicking the below to aid us in our important work. The global conflicts today are all turning against the Atlanticist liberal empire, and their ‘last breath’ attempts to silence the good people of this planet are obviously too little, too late. The great global awakening has already come, and it isn’t going away.