After hours of research you decide to post a comment on an article you read on the Internet. A few seconds after your comment appears, replies flood in refuting your position:
“All your facts are wrong. Grow up, jerk.”
“Clueless comment from dope!”
“Keep you uninformed delusions to yourself!
Sometimes, these tirades continue against comment for hours, even days. Confused, I had no idea where these tirades originated until I read this report from US Right to Know:
Biotech giant Monsanto is being accused of hiring, through third parties, an army of Internet trolls to counter negative comments, while citing positive “ghost-written” pseudo-scientific reports which downplay the potential risks of their products.
In March, a judge ruled, despite Monsanto’s objections, that the documents obtained by the plaintiffs could be released.
One document released alleged that:
Monsanto even started the aptly-named ‘Let Nothing Go’ program to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs.
Plaintiffs alleged the company “quietly funnels money to ‘think tanks’ such as the ‘Genetic Literacy Project’ and the ‘American Council on Science and Health”– organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.” Continue reading →
The founders of Facebook and Tesla/SpaceX share a dangerous idea that would control what you think.
Both kings of inequality are promoting plans to implant monitors into your brain.
In a recent manifesto released to the Associated Press (AP) “Zuck” said the following:
“The long term promise of AI is that in addition to identifying risks more quickly and accurately than would have already happened, it may also identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all, including terrorists planning attacks using private channels, people bullying someone too afraid to report it themselves, and other issues both local and global,” he wrote on a version of the document given to Associated Press.
That was the original version, but what was released to the public seems to be watered down, hiding the real dangers of his plan. Continue reading →
This Facebook page (open link) and website was still online today, despite protests to the social site’s Community Standards officials.
Jewish-Born Mark Zuckerberg owns Facebook. Indeed, he is the richest Jewish-born person in the world. Note that I use the term “Jewish-born.” You might think he would support less hatred of Jews.
According to Shurat HaDin (The Israel Law Center), a non-profit legal organization dedicated to the protection of Israel,
“One of the significant characteristics of the current terror wave is the incitement on the social media networks, headed by Facebook…This incitement consists of the Facebook pages of many young Palestinians who inflame their friends to embark on terrorist attacks, provocative videos glorifying and encouraging terrorist attacks, instructions for terrorists “How to Carry out a Terrorist Attack” – all on Facebook.” Read more here.
Pro-Israel blogger Elder of Ziyon reported on Friday that a complaint he had lodged with Facebook about this Blood libel charge being an example of hate speech, was denied.
What does Facebook consider “hate speech”?
The answer is on the policy pages of Facebook, where Community Standards are explained, and the definition seems very clear to this blogger.
Here’s what Facebook says about its standards for posting on its site:
Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their:
- National origin,
- Religious affiliation,
- Sexual orientation,
- Sex, gender, or gender identity, or
- Serious disabilities or diseases.
Organizations and people dedicated to promoting hatred against these protected groups are not allowed a presence on Facebook. As with all of our standards, we rely on our community to report this content to us.
People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions, and practices. Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding. Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others about that hate speech. When this is the case, we expect people to clearly indicate their purpose, which helps us better understand why they shared that content.
You might look at the picture on the site and the strange writing. It can be translated in small part by visitors, but a full translation of this blood libel attack is not provided.