I think the EFF is being generous here. Facebook blocks posts to certain types of political material even if it is posted by an American citizen. They would round out and wax and wane about 'terrorist material' - content such as the ISIL newsletter (which overall is not 'gross', especially compared to some American cinema). But blocked content is broader than that.
Facebook is also part of a network of other American Social Media companies that have automated systems to block content posted that match certain patterns and known propaganda efforts by other nations.
Recently an anti-TPP website was blocked simultaneously across several communication providers (https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38pmg8/hey_redd...). This was a mistake as the website name closely matched the name of a Russian Anti-TPP propaganda campaign.
The mere existence of the ability to coordinate content blocking across service providers means that a censorship network exists - the question becomes whether it is 'abused'.
It's difficult to ascertain abuse, of course, given the Obama Administrations policy with regard to censorship and propaganda and its weakening of the Smith-Mundt Anti-Propaganda Act. The Administration believes that the US government is not responsible for having its influence operations online spill over to affect American people - it is merely prohibited from actively and specifically targeting Americans. That is, the new policy is that it's okay - even expected - for Americans to be 'collateral damage' in censorship and propaganda campaigns.
Thinkers like Cass Sunstein are traded high up in the US Government - Sunstein wrote a book on the 'Problem of Free Speech'. Broadly this influential Washington Legal Scholar believes that speech that is actively harmful or misinformed can and should be 'addressed' by the state - and he recommends ways in which that can happen.
The Snowden documents reveal that (so far as we know non-specific American targeting) the mass surveillance networks are intrinsically tied to influence operation capabilities - outside those capabilities at the GCHQ (which legally are not prevented from targeting Americans) - and who engage quite heavily in psychological influence campaigns.
I have personally, repeatedly witnessed Facebook selectively block posts of mine linking Wikileaks material, the Snowden documents (when they were first being published), and leaked drafts of the Trans Pacific Partnership and watched as others complained about having their posts trying to organize protests on May Day blocked similarly.
It's true also that Facebook has been associated with at least two studies on societal manipulation programs with researchers that are funded by the Department of Defense in the same area. Many people remember the "Emotion Manipulation Study" - fewer the vote influence study. These sorts of programs have been called for in the past 10 years of Defense Document planning and DARPA today, under their SMISC program, study similarly how to shape and track ideas in social media networks like Twitter.
I'm honestly glad that the EFF is finally giving this issue some attention.
You make this case yourself, but I'll say it explicitly: the proven existence of a hidden censorship network implies abuse. There is no locus of power power without abuse; there is no hidden locus of power without extreme hidden abuse.
Psychological influence attacks against the public by governments are as old as time, and quite insidious. Remember on the day of Benghazi how the government tried to distract the public with the mention of that irrelevant video? They're still doing this. They think we're pawns that are easy to manipulate with information, even when the truth comes out and leaves egg on their face time and time again.
Every incidence of Facebook blocking like you indicate should be documented and dispersed publicly via non-controlled channels-- even 4chan would do, despite its recent clamp down on free speech. It's no secret that the US government is at the helm of these efforts to censor, silence, and manipulate the public.
I'm honestly waiting on the EFF, ACLU, and other human rights groups (and the public) to take a hard stance and declare outright that the Western neoliberal governments are malicious actors who are actively fighting against their citizens. It's been a long road from liberty to here, and we need to start fighting back.
Military information support for national security purposes within the borders of the US is considered legal by the US government. It is called Civilian Affairs Information Support. The Army, it was discovered, was sending fake letters to news media organizations about experiences and events that did not happen. The Bush Administration, with the Renton Group and through the Iraqi National Council (CIA front) influenced American journalists (Gordon, Miller) to write stories it knew to be false (about WMDs in Iraq) and then pointed to the resulting publications as justification for war. Jessica Lynch's story was a fabrication and the CIA helped in the production of "Body of Lies" - this is similar to CIA involvement in the narrative development of the recent CBS production "Good Kill". Benghazi is a perfect recent example. The old terrorist boogyman line, too. Ken Dilanian was outed recently working with the CIA to 'craft' journalism about the use of Drones overseas. Speculatively: the fellowship of media executives put together by Lynton on the request of the State Department to help with anti-Russian and anti-ISIL messaging could find CAIS applications.
CAIS is a separate concept from psychological warfare that happens to weaponize American media that will also ultimately be consumed by Americans such as "The Interview" (revealed by the SONY hack leaks) or the use of front page New York Times article placement for Military Deception in the invasion of Fallujah. It is different because it specifically seeks to encourage the public to support military operations and wars: Americans are the audience.
It is also true that legally the US government is allowed to perform influence operations ("strategic communications") on Americans during states of emergency. There are reports of this being done during both Occupy and Ferguson (in Ferguson there was a media blackout zone placed over the city and the US government worked with airline companies to deny journalist travel to Ferguson to get coverage; its also true journalists were regularly and asymmetrically arrested and detained). It's true that both Occupy and Ferguson were declared states of emergency - and so it would be legal for the government to manage public perception in these cases. But we don't have smoking gun evidence to claim that there were concerted, explicit efforts.
American citizens should be aware of these things and discuss with their representatives what level of narrative support they would like their government to supply.
> This was a mistake as the website name closely matched the name of a Russian Anti-TPP propaganda campaign.
No — if you go through the link, it seems there was a genuine reason, or it was indeed because his domain was similar to "stopfasttrack.ru", which indeed was a spam domain.
Right. His domain was similar to and confused with the Russian propaganda operation. His website was roped into the censorship network by mistake because of its similar name.
Or do you think stopfasttrack.ru was posting 'spam' about viagra?
Facebook is also part of a network of other American Social Media companies that have automated systems to block content posted that match certain patterns and known propaganda efforts by other nations.
Recently an anti-TPP website was blocked simultaneously across several communication providers (https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38pmg8/hey_redd...). This was a mistake as the website name closely matched the name of a Russian Anti-TPP propaganda campaign.
The mere existence of the ability to coordinate content blocking across service providers means that a censorship network exists - the question becomes whether it is 'abused'.
It's difficult to ascertain abuse, of course, given the Obama Administrations policy with regard to censorship and propaganda and its weakening of the Smith-Mundt Anti-Propaganda Act. The Administration believes that the US government is not responsible for having its influence operations online spill over to affect American people - it is merely prohibited from actively and specifically targeting Americans. That is, the new policy is that it's okay - even expected - for Americans to be 'collateral damage' in censorship and propaganda campaigns.
Thinkers like Cass Sunstein are traded high up in the US Government - Sunstein wrote a book on the 'Problem of Free Speech'. Broadly this influential Washington Legal Scholar believes that speech that is actively harmful or misinformed can and should be 'addressed' by the state - and he recommends ways in which that can happen.
The Snowden documents reveal that (so far as we know non-specific American targeting) the mass surveillance networks are intrinsically tied to influence operation capabilities - outside those capabilities at the GCHQ (which legally are not prevented from targeting Americans) - and who engage quite heavily in psychological influence campaigns.
I have personally, repeatedly witnessed Facebook selectively block posts of mine linking Wikileaks material, the Snowden documents (when they were first being published), and leaked drafts of the Trans Pacific Partnership and watched as others complained about having their posts trying to organize protests on May Day blocked similarly.
It's true also that Facebook has been associated with at least two studies on societal manipulation programs with researchers that are funded by the Department of Defense in the same area. Many people remember the "Emotion Manipulation Study" - fewer the vote influence study. These sorts of programs have been called for in the past 10 years of Defense Document planning and DARPA today, under their SMISC program, study similarly how to shape and track ideas in social media networks like Twitter.
I'm honestly glad that the EFF is finally giving this issue some attention.
reply