Are we witnessing the final push towards internet censorship and the restriction of free speech?

Anyone that at least follows the news every now and then knows that the war on so called “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” has been ramping up for some time now, but especially during the last few weeks. The narrative of “fake news” gained momentum after the US (s)election and is further fueled by the whole p-gate investigation. Over time, President Obama and other establishment mouthpieces such as Mark Zuckerberg, together with the corporate media, have pushed the idea that “fake news” propagated by the “alt-right/Russian propaganda outlets” (alternative media) is a threat to democracy, but above all, to us. Meanwhile, the MSM and governments have been caught red handed time after time propagating fake or biased news in order to justify political and military action. From the gulf of Tonkin incident, to the WMDs in Iraq, Lybia, and now Syria, for decades the public has been lied to. Ironically, the NDAA (silently) legalized the use of propaganda by the US government on the American public just a few years back. The hypocrisy that is revealed here is just laughable, weren’t it so sad and serious.

The agenda that is in play to censor free speech on the internet is not only pushed in the United States by the crony capitalists, but is rather a global phenomenon. Earlier this year, the European Commission and the “IT Companies” (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft) announced to set in motion a “ Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech”. Herein it states that it wants to criminalize “hate speech”, sanction “perpetrators”, and promote “independent counter-narratives” in favor of the European Union. In their own words:

"…the spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms…"

This month, the European Commission released its first results report, and apparently the crackdown on “illegal” online speech has not been effective enough. EU’s justice commissioner Věra Jourová states:

"If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months… The last weeks and months have shown that social media companies need to live up to their important role and take up their share of responsibility when it comes to phenomena like online radicalisation, illegal hate speech or fake news."

Then on December 5, these "IT Companies" pledge to join forces in order to "more quickly identify the worst terrorist propaganda and prevent it from spreading online".

The program announced Monday would create a database of unique digital “fingerprints” to help automatically identify videos or images the companies could then remove. The program, which is expected to begin in early 2017, aims to assuage government concerns — and derail proposed new federal legislation — over social media content that is seen as increasingly driving terrorist recruitment and radicalization, while also balancing free-speech issues.

And just today, Hillary Clinton urged action from both the private and public sectors to combat “false reports”, referring to the incident at Comet Ping Pong:

"We must stand up for our democracy…the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year…It's now clear that so-called 'fake news' can have real-world consequences. This isn't about politics or partisanship…Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities."

And to top it all off, even Pope (Puppet) Francis has decided to mingle himself in the discussion of countering the so called threat of “fake news”:

"I think the media have to be very clear, very transparent, and not fall into - no offence intended - the sickness of coprophilia, that is, always wanting to cover scandals, covering nasty things, even if they are true…since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, a lot of damage can be done…the means of communication have their own temptations, they can be tempted by slander, and therefore used to slander people, to smear them, this above all in the world of politics…they can be used as means of defamation…No-one has a right to do this. It is a sin and it is hurtful…it [disinformation] directs opinion in only one direction and omits the other part of the truth."

The global push for censorship on the web is taking on Orwellian forms, and it seems like we’re in the final stages of the war on free speech and an open internet. It’s a critical moment in time. My conclusion is that this is no coincidence, but rather the logical next step (or attempt?) by the global elite to further silence any dissidents and accelerate the New World Order. Tie this in with the push for Internet ID the last few years, and this all paints a rather dark picture. However, the globalists are quickly losing ground all around us, and they know it. That’s why they are trying so hard, and grabbing everything (and everyone) in their power to stop the truth from exposing their lies. *Psst, the emperor wears no clothes!*

Even though my "rant" might seem like we're up against an "undefeatable force", I'm optimistic. There are way too many people awake at this point, and more and more are making their voices heard. I feel that we are on the winning side, but only as long as we keep raising this very important issue and continue to inform ourselves and others about it. The light will make the darkness flee in the end, stay strong.

Finally, a short clip from Wag The Dog.


Thanks for reading and looking forward to your thoughts.

a reply to: snchrnct



Good OP to summarise .....

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing!

On a positive note: thanks to the increasing censorship by these "IT Companies", new platforms have arisen such as Gab, an alternative to Twitter.

Gab, which launched in August, is still in early beta stage and so is available via invite only. But CEO Andrew Torba, who worked in Silicon Valley for five years before starting the project, says what began as a three-person startup now has 90,000 users and over 100,000 people applying to be part of the new networking site.

Torba emphasized to FoxNews.com that Gab is not designed specifically for conservatives, but he believes its emphasis on free speech is appealing particularly to those on the right being silenced on Twitter and other networking sites.

“From day one we’ve said everyone is welcome here – we are defending free speech,” he told FoxNews.com. “But we are getting a lot of people on the right because they ae being censored, so its understandable they are migrating over.”

While still lacking some of the functionality of Twitter, Gab has a number of features that its rival does not – including the ability to “upvote” posts and give them more prominence, as well as a more liberal 300 character limit for “Gabs” as opposed to Twitter’s 140 character limit.

One of Gab’s main features is the ability for users to mute phrases, words, hashtags and other users. Torba says Gab feels that is a better way of countering speech that people find offensive than taking a big brother approach and banning it.

“If you don’t want to see these people, you can mute them. Our policy is to have free speech within the legal limitations of the law,” he said. “The cure for hate speech isn’t to shut them out, but to allow more open discourse with these people and ask ‘why are you posting this?’”

And here are some video responses/reports coming from three different alternative media outlets that are IMO all worth watching. They explain in easy-to-understand language what's going on, and why we should care. Perhaps these videos can help some people spreading the message to others, because I know that many prefer watching over reading. It's adviced to watch them all, and watch them in order. It paints a very clear overall picture of the issues we are facing.

8 December, 2016. Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman. “With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”

“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy. “I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”

i am for censoring hate speech, pedos, online drug rings, dark webs, murderers/gangsters' twitters and facebook accounts, unthinkable smut... borderline inhumane shiite, people pedaling terroristic rhetoric, supremacy rehtoric etc

why censoring those are bad? whats their place exactly. when can we find the distinction of being able to have a voice, with civility as humans vs the above mentioned. if these are not ok on the street, why should they be ok or voiced online...
why do people make this sound like no one will be able to say things online anymore... its just that 'certain' groups are afraid to lose their last gasp of a voice in society, afraid to lose the thinly veiled anonymity they have so they can spew hateful #, afraid of the obvious inevitability that no one really want to hear them, they were only being heard online so far is just by proxy... afraid of their real place in society.

those morons spewing hate, kiddy fiddlers, people who think they are better than another race... just because, terroristic propagandists, can all go back and die in the little hole or cocoon they emerged from , they dont need to be heard. there's enough to #ing worry about as it is, why add to the #erage, lets remove them from the #ery that is the internet while we can.

originally posted by: snchrnct
“If you don’t want to see these people, you can mute them. Our policy is to have free speech within the legal limitations of the law,” he said. “The cure for hate speech isn’t to shut them out, but to allow more open discourse with these people and ask ‘why are you posting this?’”

Things that get called *hate* in general dont bother me. We cant possibly all

think/believe the same. This was a big thing during Brexit where those

who wanted to leave the EU were called racist zenophobic etc. So they had to

have the guts to brave the onslaught.


If someone *thinks* differently how is their *brain* going to be altered ...will

they have to have a lobotomy?


I think its time people lived and let live ..... As long as no one gets physically

hurt. Anything else and we end up zombies!

a reply to: snchrnct

I was reading about all this earlier. All I could do was shake my head in disbelief as I read it.


I noticed all this 'fake news' hoo-har is since Hillary got exposed online for the abnormal creature she is, I just knew she'd try to wriggle out of explaining herself and she'd certainly never admit to anything, but I wondered how she could possibly dodge all the tish that hit the fan. I pointed out on another thread a few weeks ago that the Clintons had gone quiet, and I said to not take your eyes off them for a New York minute, because when they're quiet they're up to summat. Probably plotting their way out of the whole tish-storm.

Well, now we know the product of that quiet period, they came up with this 'fake-news' rubbish peddling it for all they're worth, and now everything that was said online and elsewhere about her will be put down to 'fake news'. Even a blind man can see it coming a mile off.

But censorship will be imposed on Europe first, then USA. Why? It has to look like the Clinton mafia aren't the ones to propose it, and not the first to impose it, otherwise it would look like she's trying to impose censorship to protect her and other corrupt super-criminals and their inhuman crimes from being exposed.



The EU needs to be careful about imposing such legislation on free countries at such a time when many member states are due elections soon. Many citizens in most if not all member states are very disillusioned with the EU as it is, and are likely to vote for far right politics because they're the only ones that will offer EU-exit referendums. We are already seeing a rise in popularity of the far right, but don't let the media tell you it's because of a rise in racism, it isn't. It's because people want out of the oppressive EU but the other political persuasions won't hear of it.

Just my crazy thoughts on the topic. Thanks for reading.

a reply to: odzeandennz

What you may deem 'hate speech' is anothr persons 'concern'.

a reply to: doobydoll

You made some very good points and I agree with you for the most part. However, I'm not so sure about your reasoning regarding the Clintons and censorship in the EU. Yes, the media frenzy surrounding Hillary and 'fake news' has certainly accelerated things, also in the EU, but I think it goes much deeper than that. Of course the 'Clinton mafia' will do anything to protect themselves and their own interests, but the plan by the EU and the tech giants for internet censorship has been on the drawing board for years. Besides Hillary and her network are just one of the many globalist puppets/organizations serving their masters on the grand chess board. One by one they are being exposed right now. They are seeing their control on the people's minds slip away by each day. Hillary just happens to be one that has been in the spotlight a lot. She is now using all this 'fake news' rethoric in a desperate attempt to protect her own a$$, but most importantly, the globalist's agenda. At least, that's how I see it at the moment.

Then on December 5, these "IT Companies" pledge to join forces in order to "more quickly identify the worst terrorist propaganda and prevent it from spreading online".

Default settings for newbies?
Don't give any particular "voice" the ability to dominate the interactive media?
Still allow free will but make it a little more challenging?

a reply to: doobydoll


People are just not generally happy in the West. In Britain everyone seems to be on security cameras. The High ups get away with murder and are never prosecuted. Hard drug use is rife I don't mean pot. The main profits from the trade flow upward. Now we have creditable evidence that all parties in Government cover each others backsides for Pedo related crimes.
So basically the average joe is pretty well stuffed and powerless.

Which will mean where are the alternatives? , only one and that is Russia, if you like and back Putin, he's your man. He is admired and respected in Russia...(personally no thanks) but it seems that they haven't had a fraction of the sick crap that's been happening in the West recently. Would I trade Putin for Whitehall? I would be very upset with the people who forced me into that position first.

Thanks for putting this together.

This is all part of the Information War that Hillary and co. have been addressing for years now against Russian and China, and now as claimed all RW media is backed by Russia. One source for that.

It's coming to a head more so now that 1) She didn't win 2)The MSM is on it's way out and trying to preserve it's dying medium of propaganda.

The larger issue is how far will it all go: Sites like this may be on the line because of this war. As already seem with WaPo using a now declared propaganda site for the "fake news" list.

Just to answer the hypothesis you pose in the title, OP: No, this is certainly not the final attempt at censoring internet communication. Further, oppressive regimes love "free" speech on the internet because it gives them allows them to keep a finger on the pulse of their "enemies" as well as disseminate cloaked propaganda. There isn't a government in the world that would prefer their citizens went back to talking with one another in the same unmonitored room or began sending snail mail or leaving dead drops again.

originally posted by: FijiMermaid
Just to answer the hypothesis you pose in the title, OP: No, this is certainly not the final attempt at censoring internet communication. Further, oppressive regimes love "free" speech on the internet because it gives them allows them to keep a finger on the pulse of their "enemies" as well as disseminate cloaked propaganda. There isn't a government in the world that would prefer their citizens went back to talking with one another in the same unmonitored room or began sending snail mail or leaving dead drops again.

Really? Then what about the websites that are currently blocked in China or North Korea? Or what about the internet censorship during the Arab Spring?

I think the opposite of what you said is true. Oppressive regimes will do anything to restrict "free" speech as much as possible, including on the internet. People then are much more forced to move and communicate physically, which makes it easier to identify and "gather" dissidents in one place and to take them out. It also for a large part takes away the opportunity for you to be anonymous. I don't think I have to explain why that can easily be used against you.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) posted an article about the 10 most censored countries.

The list is based on research into the use of tactics ranging from imprisonment and repressive laws to harassment of journalists and restrictions on Internet access.

Interesting read.

Another example of censorship being revealed or just some "unfortunate error" on the server or from an employee? The New York Times has apparently scrubbed its article on Norway's pedophile ring bust (dating from 20 November, 2016). Luckily though the page has been archived, so you can fact check it for yourself. Somehow web archive links don't work here on ATS, so I just copy pasted it below. Add them together in your searchbar and go.
web.archive.org...
mobile.nytimes.com...

PS: this is not in any way an attempt to bring p-gate into the discussion, so please let's not go down that road, thanks.

a reply to: snchrnct

Isn't internet control under some UN group now?

a reply to: DBCowboy

As far as I know, that's not the case (yet). The internet's domain name system (DNS) is now under control of ICANN. Wikipedia summarizes:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, /ˈaɪkæn/ eye-kan) is a nonprofit organization that is responsible for coordinating the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces of the Internet, ensuring the network's stable and secure operation.[1] ICANN performs the actual technical maintenance work of the central Internet address pools and DNS root zone registries pursuant to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function contract. The contract regarding the IANA stewardship functions between ICANN and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce ended on October 1, 2016, formally transitioning the functions to the global multi-stakeholder community

Yes, there have been "talks" about a possible takeover by the UN, but a lot of the articles seem to be based on speculation. Up until now nothing concrete has happened. Or did I miss something here?

a reply to: snchrnct

I'm just spit balling here, but I wonder if net neutrality will have some influence over internet censorship.

99.9 percent of all MSM I'll believe before any crap blog. also, any site big enough to be sued and lose big money that would put them out of business and cause personal financial harm.....those sites are going to have fact checkers (editors).
the rest of you can believe anything you want