2020-11-05 update. Bloomberg, August 2019:
“Twitter employees train Chinese officials to amplify message
- Push persists despite recent ban on paid ads from state media”
“The company provides certain [Chinese] officials with support, like verifying their accounts and training them on how to amplify messages, including with the use of hashtags.”
“Twitter says it works with public officials and politicians around the world, not just in China …”
“Like Google, Facebook and other sites blocked in China, Twitter sells advertising to Chinese companies like Huawei Technologies Co. and Xiaomi Corp. …”
GFTM Act Collusively under control the European Commission
In 2016-2018, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft (“GFTM” / Internet Gatekeepers) signed at least two agreements with the European Commission, committing to censor speech in the US, in a manner prescribed by European Commission, EU governments, and other EU political powers.
2016: the “Hate Speech” Obligations
On May 31, 2016, Google (in respect to YouTube), Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft (“GFTM”) made a commitment to the European Commission, agreeing to censor “illegal hate speech”. Contrary to its title, the document isn’t limited to “hate speech,” or any defined speech, but it is a requirement to accommodate the demands of the European Commission, EU governments, and other political forces. Many of those political forces are wildly anti-American. Further, the document’s reach isn’t limited to the EU, but applies worldwide, based on the theory that the internet is global and needs a global regulation. GFTM consider themselves global corporations, and censor content and content providers in the US, de-facto accepting jurisdiction of Brussels and Berlin in the US. For example, while Hezbollah is designated terrorist organization in the US, it is a recognized party in many EU countries & governments. Therefore this terrorist organization now has a say on who and what is de-platformed by GFTM in the US.
This commitment made by GFTM to the European Commission is an instrument used to justify the illegal, monopolistic collusion to deny business to and to silence certain US speakers and publishers. The fact that the EU demanded this commitment only from GFTM is more evidence that these platforms/companies are a monopoly on the information distribution in the US and the EU.
2018: the “Fake News” Obligations
On September 26, 2018, the European Commission published a “self-regulatory” Code of Practice on Disinformation. On October 16, 2018 (yes, three weeks before the US elections) Google, Facebook, and Twitter (plus Mozilla Foundation, the leading warrior for Obamanet preservation), signed this Code of Practice, and even presented individual roadmaps of how to implement it. Microsoft joined in 2019. Much of the Code seems to be targeted at the US, and is applied by Google, Facebook, and Twitter in the US. “Disinformation” is defined as “verifiably false or misleading information,” with some trivial qualifiers. Enough said. The chief decider of what the truth actually is seems to be the government of Germany. In Germany, the law administers fines of up to 50 million Euros per “fake news” offense. The Code of Practice on Disinformation specifically spells certain practices, used by Google, Facebook, and Twitter:
“Relevant Signatories commit to deploy policies and processes to disrupt advertising and monetization incentives for relevant behaviours … These policies and processes can include, for example, the restriction of advertising services or limiting paid placements …”
“Signatories commit to keep complying with the requirement set by EU and national laws, and outlined in self-regulatory Codes …”
“Relevant Signatories commit to support good faith independent efforts to track Disinformation and understand its impact, including the independent network of fact-checkers facilitated by the European Commission upon its establishment.”
Apparently, “the independent network of fact-checkers facilitated by the European Commission” isn’t meant as a joke. The following sentences of the signed Code underscore the collusion.
“… the Signatories will meet annually to review the Code and to take further steps if necessary.“
“Each Signatory may at any time inform the other Signatories that it believes a Signatory is not complying with its commitments under the Code, and of the grounds for this belief. The Signatories may decide to consider the matter in a plenary meeting.”
This is a written agreement to monopolize trade.
2019: EU Court Subjects GFTM to EU and EU Members Jurisdiction WORLDWIDE
On October 3, 2019 the “Court of Justice” of the European Union decided that national courts of any of the 28 EU nations may order Facebook to remove “hateful” content worldwide, including in the US. The same rules apply to other cartel members.
GFTM are Foreign Governments Agents
The executives and directors of GFTM might be illegal (under 18 U.S. Code § 951 “espionage lite,” not under the toothless FARA) agents of foreign governments. Signing and “hate speech” and “fake news” codes, and implementing them in the US under control and direction of foreign governments appears to be violation of 18 U.S. Code § 951. Agents of foreign governments (especially in the light of the recent increase in its enforcement) by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft executives.
GFT are State Actors
The 2015 net neutrality regulations (Obamanet) made Google, Facebook, and Twitter state actors and telecommunications common carriers.
Signing and implementing the “hate speech” and “fake news” codes demonstrates that Google, Facebook, and Twitter consider themselves state actors with authority to act as such. Repeated failure by the federal government to prosecute these companies under anti-trust statutes, and their officers and directors under 18 U.S. Code § 951. Agents of foreign governments (especially in the light of the recent increase in the enforcement of § 951) indicates that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are indeed state actors.
Admission of Collusive Monopoly
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted monopolistic collusion among GFTMA in an interview on January 2019:
[interviewer: Oh, right, so general conspiracy theories about conservatives being targeted in media.]
Right, this is what I was referring to, in terms of all platforms working together. We definitely collaborate on methods, but particular actions, we don’t.
The last sentence is a lie. They do collaborate on particular actions, too. Apple, Facebook, and Google de-platformed Alex Jones / Infowars within hours from each other. Twitter waited for two weeks before doing the same.
Twitter was in Skolkovo and aided Kribrum, a social media monitoring service in Russian Federation. Around the same time (reported in the Wall Street Journal on May 8, 2016) Twitter cut off US intelligence agencies from Dataminr, a service that monitors tweets in real time and “sends out alerts of unfolding terror attacks, political unrest and other potentially important events.” Twitter continued providing this service to private corporations abroad. From the article:
The senior intelligence official said Twitter appeared to be worried about the “optics” of seeming too close to American intelligence services.
From The Atlantic, Are Facebook, Twitter, and Google American Companies?, by Alexis C. Madrigal, November 1, 2017:
[After cutting off USA, Twitter via Dataminr] reportedly still allowed the Russian media outlet RT to continue using the service for some time.
“Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian intelligence services?” [Senator Tom] Cotton asked.
“We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government,” [Twitter’s general counsel, Sean] Edgett responded.
“So you will apply the same policy to our intelligence community that you’d apply to an adversary’s intelligence services?” Cotton asked again.
“As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently,” Edgett replied.
Another good observation in the same piece:
Of course, it is a constituent part of the business models of Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others that the buying and selling of advertisements is handled by software without the formal and informal human checks that might have existed in traditional advertising-sales relationships.
Originally published on 2019-10-004. Updated on 2020-11-05.