I was looking for something earlier so I took a little stroll through my research stash. I came across this from 2005. The years years in a rear are always interesting to look back on!
On February 4, 2004, Zuckerberg launched Facebook from his Harvard dormitory room.
An earlier inspiration for Facebook may have come from Phillips Exeter Academy, the prep school from which Zuckerberg graduated in 2002. It published its own student directory, “The Photo Address Book”, which students referred to as “The Facebook”. Such photo directories were an important part of the student social experience at many private schools. With them, students were able to list attributes such as their class years, their friends, and their telephone numbers.
The face of innocence. Just a real smart guy trying to do something great for society…. 2004
Just a few quick facts
Mark Zuckerberg EARLY ON
Zuckerberg attended the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth summer camp when he was young.
LOOK AT HIM NOW!
Mark Zuckerberg Net Worth and Income Source
REAL TIME NET WORTH
$67.3B as of 3/11/22
One year later after he left Harvard this quy was being interviewed and speaking at the STANFORD CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
HERE is the transcript :
TRANSCRIPTION OF INTERVIEW WITH MARK ZUCKERBERG GIVEN BY JAMES W. BREYER AT THE ENTREPRENEURIAL THOUGHT LEADERS SEMINARS, STANFORD CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, MS&E 472, AUTUMN QUARTER 2005.
Page 1 of 47
ZUCKERBERG-BREYER INTERVIEW, OCT. 26, 2005
STANFORD CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Big Tech Censored Dozens of Doctors, More Than 800 Accounts for COVID-19 ‘Misinformation,’ Study Finds
Ailan Evans / @AilanHEvans / February 09, 2022
Twitter, Google, Google+, Gmail, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat are among the platforms arrayed on the screen of an Apple iPhone. Many of them have used their largely unregulated power to censor information they don’t approve of as “misinformation.” (Photo: Chesnot/Getty Images)
Major technology companies and social media platforms have removed, suppressed or flagged the accounts of more than 800 prominent individuals and organizations, including medical doctors, for COVID-19 “misinformation,” according to a new study from the Media Research Center.
The study focused on acts of censorship on major social media platforms and online services, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Ads, and TikTok.
Instances of censorship included Facebook’s decision to flag the British Medical Journal with a “fact check” and “missing context” label, reducing the visibility of a post, for a study delving into data-integrity issues with a Pfizer vaccine clinical trial.
Facebook also deleted the page of the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter led by dozens of medical professionals, including Dr. Jay Battacharya, a Stanford epidemiologist, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a former employee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which advocated for less restrictive measures to address the dangers of COVID-19.
“Big Tech set up a system where you can’t disagree with ‘the science’ even though that’s the foundation of the scientific method,” Dan Gainor, MRC vice president of Free Speech America, told the Daily Caller National Foundation. “If doctors and academic journals can’t debate publicly, then it’s not science at all. It’s ‘religion.’”
Big Tech also scrubbed podcast host Joe Rogan’s interviews with scientists Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, the latter of whom was instrumental in pioneering mRNA technology. Twitter banned Malone from its platform permanently in late December over the virologist’s tweets questioning the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.
“We tallied 32 different doctors who were censored, including mRNA vaccine innovator Dr. Robert Malone,” Gainor said. “Censoring views of credentialed experts doesn’t ensure confidence in vaccines. It undermines faith in government COVID-19 strategies.“
In addition to medical doctors, the study examined instances in which members of Congress were censored by tech platforms.
These included an incident last August in which YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for posting a video arguing that “cloth masks” are not effective against the coronavirus, a view later echoed by many prominent medical commentators. Twitter also flagged a tweet from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., in which he wrote “studies show those with natural immunity from a prior infection are much less likely to contract and spread COVID than those who only have vaccine-induced immunity.”
The study also examined Big Tech censorship of prominent media personalities, such as Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and Dan Bongino.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, contact email@example.com.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders”
By Jacob Nordangård
Through its Young Global Leaders program, the World Economic Forum has been instrumental in shaping a world order that undermines all democratic principles. For several decades, this program has nurtured compliant leaders acting as WEF agents in governments around the world. The consequences are far-reaching and may turn out to be devastating for humanity.
“I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on… they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now…” (Klaus Schwab)
In 1992, Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum launched a program initially called Global Leaders of Tomorrow. In 2004, this program was turned into the Forum for Young Global Leaders (which I cover in my book The Global Coup D’Etat) – a 5-year program of indoctrination into WEFs principles and goals. The aim was – and is – to find suitable future leaders for the emerging global society. The program has since its inception has included politicians, business leaders, royalty, journalists, performers and other cultural influencers who have excelled in their fields but have not yet turned 40 years of age (originally 43 in order to include Angela Merkel). It has since grown into an extensive global network of dedicated leaders with enormous resources and influence, all working to implement the technocratic plans of the World Economic Forum in their respective nations and fields.
The network creates a force for worldwide influence through the combination of the individual skills and resources of its members.
As Klaus Schwab says in the introductory quote, it has become very successful. Already in the first year, 1992, a number of highly influential candidates were elected.
Among 200 selected were global profiles such as:
- Angela Merkel
- Tony Blair
- Nicolas Sarkozy
- Richard Branson (Virgin)
- Jorma Ollila (Shell Oil), and
- José Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission 2004–2014).
- Bill Gates (Global Leader of Tomorrow 1992)
- Justin Trudeau (Young Global Leader, unknown class)
More examples of influential Young Global Leaders :
- Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden
- Crown Prince Haakon of Norway
- Crown Prince Fredrik of Denmark
- Prince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, Netherlands
- Princess Reema Bint Bandar Al-Saud, Ambassador for Saudi-Arabia in USA
- Jacinda Arden, Prime Minister, New Zeeland
- Alexander De Croo, Prime Minister, Belgium
- Emmanuel Macron, President, France
- Sanna Marin, Prime Minister, Finland
- Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President, Costa Rica
- Faisal Alibrahim, Minister of Economy and Planning, Saudi Arabia
- Shauna Aminath, Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Technology, Maldives
- Ida Auken, MP, former Minister of Environment, Denmark (author to the infamous article “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better”)
- Annalena Baerbock, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leader of Alliance 90/Die Grünen, Germany
- Kamissa Camara, Minister of the Digital Economy and Planning, Mali
- Ugyen Dorji, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Bhutan
- Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Canada
- Martín Guzmán, Minister of Finance, Argentina
- Muhammad Hammad Azhar, Minister of Energy, Pakistan
- Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information and communications technology and Innovation, Rwanda
- Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, South Africa
- Birgitta Ohlson, Minister for European Union Affairs 2010–2014, Sweden
- Mona Sahlin, Party Leader of the Social Democrats 2007–2011, Sweden
- Stav Shaffir, Leader of the Green Party, Israel
- Vera Daves de Sousa, Minister of Finance, Angola
- Leonardo Di Caprio, actor and Climate Activist
- Mattias Klum, photographer and Environmentalist
- Jack Ma, Founder of Alibaba
- Larry Page, Founder of Google
- Ricken Patel, Founder of Avaaz
- David de Rothschild, adventurer and Environmentalist
- Jimmy Wale, Founder of Wikipedia
- Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman of Investor
- Niklas Zennström, Founder of Skype
- Mark Zuckerberg, Founder of Facebook
The purpose from the beginning has been to “identify and advance a future-oriented global agenda, focusing on issues at the intersection of the public and private sectors.” Public–Private Partnerships is one of the cornerstones of the World Economic Forum philosophy. That is, a merger between state and large companies (also known as corporativism) with the aim of solving global problems of in a more “effective” way. The choice of leaders clearly reflects this aspiration.
The Young Global Leaders group was initially instructed to identify the major challenges of the 21st century. These included peace, the environment, education, technology and health – areas which these upcoming leaders could exploit politically, economically, and culturally in the new millennium.
Partners for Global Leaders of Tomorrow in 2000 were large global companies such as:
- The Coca Cola Company
- Ernst & Young
- Volkswagen, and
- BP Amoco
These could contribute to the agenda by “playing an active role in developing and implementing the concept of the GLT project. The partners can therefore actively participate in the development of GLT programs; representatives of the partner companies as well as their guests are invited to GLT meetings ..
”Since the Global Leaders of Tomorrow was turned into Young Global Leaders 2004, partners such as:
- The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- JPMorganChase (with alumni from the program) have also participated as sponsors.
The ultimate consequence of both public–private partnerships and these target areas is the creation of a largely fascist social contract in which the individual has become subordinated to these powerful interests. Noble goals of creating a better world have also been kidnapped. This is especially evident in the context of the partnership between the WEF and the UN and the implementation of the global goals (Agenda 2030) through the application of the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
This means that the democratic principles and division of power of the 20th century have largely been completely undermined and instead replaced by a new global class that shapes our common future based on their own interests. This has led to a de facto privatisation of both national governments and international organisations, where lobbyists are no longer kept in the lobby but have moved into the seat of power, shaping policies directly affecting our lives. What this means has become particularly evident since the pandemic was declared in March 2020. In addition, leading multinational investment management corporations such as BlackRock, led by the World Economic Forum’s own Larry Fink, have constantly moved their positions forward.
German economist and journalist Ernst Wolff believes that many of the national leaders included in the Young Global Leader program have been selected for their willingness to carry out the tough agenda of lockdowns in recent years without asking any questions, and that their impending failure (as evidenced by in a growing dissatisfaction of the masses) will be used as an excuse to create a new form of Global Government where the old nation states become largely obsolete. A new global digital currency with Universal Basic Income (UBI) can then be gradually introduced to replace our doomed monetary system. This conclusion partly coincides with my own. It is also supported by Paul Raskin‘s scenarios from The Great Transition Initiative on how a totalitarian “New Earth Order” is established, to be replaced in the long run by a global democratic government (Earth Federation) with a World Constitution.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the catastrophic failure of an every-country-for-itself approach to public health, and national economic interests, rather than global needs, continue to dominate discussions of climate policy, paving the path toward climate chaos.
Under the tricameral World Parliament come the four main agencies of the Earth Federation government: the World Supreme Court system, the World Executive, the World Enforcement System, and the World Ombudsman.Glen T. Martin, The Great Transition Requires the Earth Constitution
The vision is that a peaceful and harmonious world in balance is created through the establishment of a World Federation with a World Parliament, World Government and a World Court. These are ideas that have long circulated in Club of Rome and closely connected New Age circles. The question is how such a new global system of power would escape the fate of being kidnapped by the same interests that created our current corrupt and failing system? This is in view of those who support projects such as The Great Transition (initiated with start-up capital from Steven Rockefeller). What is happening is rather a method of taking us to their ultimate solution in the form of a global technocratic control system.
However, it is highly unlikely that this plan will succeed. Awareness is spreading like wildfire and the panic of the elite increases as their narrative crumbles and people become more and more immune to the propaganda. Hence all the inquisitors and “fact checkers” who diligently gatekeep the narrative and help steer public opinion in the “right” direction. They are surely to be trusted since, for example, David Roy Thomson, Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Corporation, is an alumni of Global Leaders of Tomorrow, class of 1993.
It is now time to take control of our own destinies and to avoid falling into new traps.
Thanks to investigative journalist Cory Morningstar for the clip that inspired this blog article. Follow her blog Wrong Kind of Green.
 World Economic Forum, GLT Class of 1993.pdf
 World Economic Forum, Young Global Leaders Community (searchable list over YGL alumni)
 Michael Lord, “Exposed: Klaus Schwab’s School For Covid Dictators, Plan for ‘Great Reset’“, RAIR Foundation, November 10, 2021
 Paul Raskin, Journey to Earthland: The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization.pdf, Tellus Institute, Boston, 2016
 Glen T. Martin, The Great Transition Requires the Earth Constitution“, Great Transition Initiative, November 2021
Over half of online recruitment in active sex trafficking cases last year occurred on Facebook, report says
BY ELIZABETH ELKIND
From: JUNE 10, 2021 / 10:57 AM / CBS NEWS
The majority of online recruitment in active sex trafficking cases in the U.S. last year took place on Facebook, according to the Human Trafficking Institute’s 2020 Federal Human Trafficking Report.
“The internet has become the dominant tool that traffickers use to recruit victims, and they often recruit them on a number of very common social networking websites,” Human Trafficking Institute CEO Victor Boutros said on CBSN Wednesday. “Facebook overwhelmingly is used by traffickers to recruit victims in active sex trafficking cases.”
Active cases include those in which defendants were charged in 2020, as well as those in which defendants were charged in previous years and charges were still pending in trial last year or the case was on appeal.
Data from the last two decades included in the human trafficking report showed that 30% of all victims identified in federal sex trafficking cases since 2000 were recruited online.
In 2020 in the U.S., 59% of online recruitment of identified victims in active cases took place on Facebook alone. The report also states that 65% of identified child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited through Facebook.
The tech giant responded to the report’s findings in a statement to CBS News: “Sex trafficking and child exploitation are abhorrent and we don’t allow them on Facebook. We have policies and technology to prevent these types of abuses and take down any content that violates our rules.”
“We also work with safety groups, anti-trafficking organizations and other technology companies to address this and we report all apparent instances of child sexual exploitation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,” the statement said.
Instagram and Snapchat were the most frequently cited platforms after Facebook for recruiting child victims in 2020. For adult victims, the next-most cited were WeChat and Instagram.
The annual report uses data from every active federal criminal and civil human trafficking case over the last year, but 2020’s featured an expanded scope.
“This report actually looks at the last 20 years of trends in the federal government,” Boutros said.
The report revealed that children accounted for 53% of identified victims in active criminal human trafficking cases in 2020, and women made up a large majority. Forty-four percent of victims of sex trafficking were women, and half were girls.
While the internet has been the most common place of recruitment since 2013, including 41% of active cases in 2020, the street, stores and cults were also cited by the group as targets of human traffickers.
Researchers note that trends also reflect the DOJ’s methods of tracking down cases.
“These data do not reflect the prevalence of online solicitation in sex trafficking schemes beyond those federally prosecuted. To be sure, the internet is implicated in many sex trafficking situations, but the high numbers of federal prosecutions involving internet solicitation are equally if not more reflective of the strategies law enforcement use to investigate these crimes,” the report states.
The majority of victims in active sex trafficking cases in 2020 were targeted with a fraudulent job offer, the report notes, followed by feigned romance. The data is based on the 602 victims identified in active sex trafficking cases for whom details of their recruitment were known.
“Traffickers often prey on existing vulnerabilities of victims,” Boutros said. “A lot of times we imagine that traffickers are these large group syndicates or networks, exploiting a huge number of victims. But actually most traffickers are not operating as an organized crime enterprise. It is mostly individual traffickers that are operating individually and often exploiting a small handful of victims at a time.”
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to correct a statistic on child victims.
In 1947, Albert Einstein, writing in this magazine, proposed the creation of a single world government to protect humanity from the threat of the atomic bomb. His utopian idea did not take hold, quite obviously, but today, another visionary is building the simulacrum of a cosmocracy.
Mark Zuckerberg, unlike Einstein, did not dream up Facebook out of a sense of moral duty, or a zeal for world peace. This summer, the population of Zuckerberg’s supranational regime reached 2.9 billion monthly active users, more humans than live in the world’s two most populous nations—China and India—combined.
To Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and CEO, they are citizens of Facebookland. Long ago he conspicuously started calling them “people” instead of “users,” but they are still cogs in an immense social matrix, fleshy morsels of data to satisfy the advertisers that poured $54 billion into Facebook in the first half of 2021 alone—a sum that surpasses the gross domestic products of most nations on Earth.
GDP makes for a telling comparison, not just because it gestures at Facebook’s extraordinary power, but because it helps us see Facebook for what it really is. Facebook is not merely a website, or a platform, or a publisher, or a social network, or an online directory, or a corporation, or a utility. It is all of these things. But Facebook is also, effectively, a hostile foreign power.
This is plain to see in its single-minded focus on its own expansion; its immunity to any sense of civic obligation; its record of facilitating the undermining of elections; its antipathy toward the free press; its rulers’ callousness and hubris; and its indifference to the endurance of American democracy.
Some of Facebook’s most vocal critics push for antitrust regulation, the unwinding of its acquisitions, anything that might slow its snowballing power. But if you think about Facebook as a nation-state—an entity engaged in a cold war with the United States and other democracies—you’ll see that it requires a civil-defense strategy as much as regulation from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Hillary Clinton told me last year that she’d always caught a whiff of authoritarianism from Zuckerberg. “I feel like you’re negotiating with a foreign power sometimes,” she said. “He’s immensely powerful.” One of his early mantras at Facebook, according to Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang in their book, An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination, was “company over country.” When that company has all the power of a country itself, the line takes on a darker meaning.
The basic components of nationhood go something like this: You need land, currency, a philosophy of governance, and people.
When you’re an imperialist in the metaverse, you need not worry so much about physical acreage—though Zuckerberg does own 1,300 acres of Kauai, one of the less populated Hawaiian islands. As for the rest of the items on the list, Facebook has them all.
Facebook is developing its own money, a blockchain-based payment system known as Diem (formerly Libra) that financial regulators and banks have feared could throw off the global economy and decimate the dollar.Facebook requires a civil-defense strategy as much as regulation from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
And for years Zuckerberg has talked about his principles of governance for the empire he built: “Connectivity is a human right”; “Voting is voice”; “Political ads are an important part of voice”; “The great arc of human history bends towards people coming together in ever greater numbers.” He’s extended those ideas outward in a new kind of colonialism—with Facebook effectively annexing territories where large numbers of people weren’t yet online. Its controversial program Free Basics, which offered people free internet access as long as Facebook was their portal to the web, was hawked as a way to help connect people. But its true purpose was to make Facebook the de facto internet experience in countries all over the world.
What Facebook possesses most of all, of course, is people—a gigantic population of individuals who choose to live under Zuckerberg’s rule. In his writings on nationalism, the political scientist and historian Benedict Anderson suggested that nations are defined not by their borders but by imagination. The nation is ultimately imaginary because its citizens “will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” Communities, therefore, are distinguished most of all “by the style in which they are imagined.”
Zuckerberg has always tried to get Facebook users to imagine themselves as part of a democracy. That’s why he tilts toward the language of governance more than of corporate fiat. In February 2009, Facebook revised its terms of service so that users couldn’t delete their data even if they quit the site. Rage against Facebook’s surveillance state was swift and loud, and Zuckerberg begrudgingly reversed the decision, saying it had all been a misunderstanding. At the same time, he introduced in a blog post the concept of a Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, inviting people to share their feedback—but only if they signed up for a Facebook account.
“More than 175 million people use Facebook,” he wrote. “If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren’t just a document that protect our rights; it’s the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world.”
Since then, Facebook’s population has swelled to 17 times that size. Along the way, Zuckerberg has repeatedly cast himself as the head of the nation of Facebook. His obsession with world dominance seems fated in retrospect—his long-standing preoccupation with the Roman empire generally and Augustus Caesar specifically, the digital version of Risk he coded as a teenager, his abiding interest in human psychology and emotional contagion.
In 2017, in a winding manifesto about his “global community,” Zuckerberg put it this way: “Overall, it is important that the governance of our community scales with the complexity and demands of its people. We are committed to always doing better, even if that involves building a worldwide voting system to give you more voice and control.” Of course, as in any business, the only votes that matter to Facebook are those of its shareholders. Yet Facebook feels the need to cloak its profit-seeking behavior in false pretenses about the very democratic values it threatens.
Pretending to outsource his most consequential decisions to empty imitations of democratic bodies has become a useful mechanism for Zuckerberg to avoid accountability. He controls about 58 percent of voting shares at the company, but in 2018 Facebook announced the creation of a sort of judiciary branchknown, in Orwellian fashion, as the Oversight Board. The board makes difficult calls on thorny issues having to do with content moderation. In May it handed down the decision to uphold Facebook’s suspension of Donald Trump. Facebook says that the board’s members are independent, but it hires and pays them.
Now, according to The New York Times, Facebook is considering forming a kind of legislative body, a commission that could make decisions on elections-related matters—political bias, political advertising, foreign interference. This would further divert scrutiny from Facebook leadership.
All of these arrangements have the feel of a Potemkin justice system, one that reveals Facebook for what it really is: a foreign state, populated by people without sovereignty, ruled by a leader with absolute power.
Facebook’s defenders like to argue that it’s naive to suggest that Facebook’s power is harmful. Social networks are here, they insist, and they’re not going anywhere. Deal with it. They’re right that no one should wish to return to the information ecosystems of the 1980s, or 1940s, or 1880s. The democratization of publishing is miraculous; I still believe that the triple revolution of the internet, smartphones, and social media is a net good for society. But that’s true only if we insist on platforms that are in the public’s best interest. Facebook is not.
Facebook is a lie-disseminating instrument of civilizational collapse. It is designed for blunt-force emotional reaction, reducing human interaction to the clicking of buttons. The algorithm guides users inexorably toward less nuanced, more extreme material, because that’s what most efficiently elicits a reaction. Users are implicitly trained to seek reactions to what they post, which perpetuates the cycle. Facebook executives have tolerated the promotion on their platform of propaganda, terrorist recruitment, and genocide. They point to democratic virtues like free speech to defend themselves, while dismantling democracy itself.The freedom to destroy yourself is one thing. The freedom to destroy democratic society is quite another.
These hypocrisies are by now as well established as Zuckerberg’s reputation for ruthlessness. Facebook has conducted psychological experiments on its users without their consent. It built a secret tiered system to exempt its most famous users from certain content-moderation rules and suppressed internal research into Instagram’s devastating effects on teenage mental health. It has tracked individuals across the web, creating shadow profiles of people who have never registered for Facebook so it can trace their contacts. It swears to fight disinformation and misinformation, while misleading researchers who study these phenomena and diluting the reach of quality news on its platforms.
Even Facebook loyalists concede that it’s a place for garbage, for hyperbole, for mendacity—but argue that people should be free to manage their intake of such toxins. “While Facebook may not be nicotine I think it is probably like sugar,” the longtime Facebook executive Andrew “Boz” Bosworth wrote in a 2019 memo. “Like all things it benefits from moderation … If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position.”
What Bosworth failed to say is that Facebook doesn’t just have the capacity to poison the individual; it’s poisoning the world. When 2.9 billion people are involved, what’s needed is moderation in scale, not moderation in personal intake. The freedom to destroy yourself is one thing. The freedom to destroy democratic society is quite another.
Facebook sold itself to the masses by promising to be an outlet for free expression, for connection, and for community. In fact, it is a weapon against the open web, against self-actualization, and against democracy. All of this so Facebook could dangle your data in front of advertisers.
To one degree or another, this is something Facebook has in common with its subsidiary Instagram and its rivals Google, YouTube (which Google owns), and Amazon. All position their existence as somehow noble—their purpose is, variously, to help people share their life, to provide answers to the most difficult questions, and to deliver what you need when you need it. But of the behemoths, Facebook is most ostentatious in its moral abdications.
Facebook needs its users to keep on believing that its dominance is a given, to ignore what it is doing to humanity and use its services anyway. Anyone who seeks to protect individual freedom and democratic governance should be bothered by this acceptance of the status quo.
Regulators have their sights set on Facebook for good reason, but the threat the company poses to Americans is about much more than its monopoly on emerging technology. Facebook’s rise is part of a larger autocratic movement, one that’s eroding democracy worldwide as authoritarian leaders set a new tone for global governance. Consider how Facebook portrays itself as a counterbalance to a superpower like China. Company executives have warned that attempts to interfere with Facebook’s untrammeled growth—through regulating the currency it is developing, for example—would be a gift to China, which wants its own cryptocurrency to be dominant. In other words, Facebook is competing with China the way a nation would.
Perhaps Americans have become so cynical that they have given up on defending their freedom from surveillance, manipulation, and exploitation. But if Russia or China were taking the exact same actions to undermine democracy, Americans would surely feel differently. Seeing Facebook as a hostile foreign power could force people to acknowledge what they’re participating in, and what they’re giving up, when they log in. In the end it doesn’t really matter what Facebook is; it matters what Facebook is doing.
What could we do in return? “Socially responsible” companies could boycott Facebook, starving it of ad revenue in the same way that trade sanctions deprive autocracies of foreign exchange. In the past, however, boycotts by major corporations like Coca-Cola and CVS have barely made a ripple. Maybe rank-and-file Facebook employees could lobby for reform, but nothing short of mass walkouts, of the sort that would make the continued operation of Facebook impossible, would be likely to have much effect. And that would require extraordinary courage and collective action.
Facebook users are the group with the most power to demand change. Facebook would be nothing without their attention. American citizens, and those of other democracies, might shun Facebook and Instagram, not merely as a lifestyle choice, but as a matter of civic duty.
Could enough people come together to bring down the empire? Probably not. Even if Facebook lost 1 billion users, it would have another 2 billion left. But we need to recognize the danger we’re in. We need to shake the notion that Facebook is a normal company, or that its hegemony is inevitable.
Perhaps someday the world will congregate as one, in peace, as Einstein dreamed, indivisible by the forces that have launched wars and collapsed civilizations since antiquity. But if that happens, if we can save ourselves, it certainly won’t be because of Facebook. It will be in spite of it.
This article appears in the November 2021print edition with the headline “Facebookland.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
PLEASE, KEEP YOUR CHILDREN SAFE
With the birth of Social Media and the Internet being available in every household, the ability to monitoring your children has become more difficult.
Nowadays, everyone has access to a mobile phone, no matter the age. I wonder how many parents actually know how to use the Child Safety features and Parental Controls on the devices. How many actually bother to check their kids devices or even have a talk with them about safety and grooming ?!
The world out there is more dangerous than you can even imagine. Children go missing EVERY DAY, children are abused EVERY DAY, children are murdered EVERY DAY.
Did You Know That Pedophiles Actually Have A Manual On How To Groom Children?
There are various “grooming guides” floating around online and amongst predators. Officials say most are amateur, but a handful are frighteningly slick.
Please educate yourselves, it could be what saves your child or someone elses child.
The 170-page guide teaches pedophiles how to target your children
RESEARCH AND LEARN HOW TO PROTECT YOUR CHILD don’t hide from what’s unsavory to hear, because is too much to listen to, or too painful to see. Think of all those poor kids abducted every single day, being torture and simply having to comply or die. They do not get a choice, they do not get to say wait, stop, slow down, be more gentle, because if they speak up, it will be much worse !
Please, protect ALL CHILDREN by learning what happens and how to prevent it from happening, educate the kids on how to stay safe and what to look out for. It’s important to have this talk with them, because the world we live in, is far from what you think it is.
Education leads to awareness, awareness in turn disrupts the demand as the perpetrators can no longer follow the pattern and in turn will start to make mistakes and reveal themselves.
Help us to get rid of the evils of our world.
By Paul Dowling
The author extends this courtesy warning to readers: The subject matter under discussion in this article is of a potentially disturbing nature.
“Enemies in our midst. Enemies. In. Our. Midst. The enemies of innocence. The crimes of ritual sexual abuse happened in schools, churches, youth groups, scout troops, orphanages, foster homes, sporting clubs, group homes, charities, and in family homes as well.”
– Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, October of 2018, addressing the matter of child ritual abuse
“There’s evil in the world, all right. Being aware of it makes you a realist, not a paranoid.”
– Dean Koontz, in
From Dark to Light: Queries for “Adrenochrome” Explode, as Internet Censorship Ceases
But Google’s algorithm censoring the freedom of expression of so many Americans has recently been reversed. It is also true that Facebook has allowed people who have been in “Facebook Jail” for years (this author included) suddenly to start sharing information again without being “shadow-banned” into obscurity.
YouTube – which has shadow-banned conservative content provided by everyone from PragerU to the SGT Report – has likewise suddenly been allowing searches for longed-for, but verboten, videos to succeed.
For years, Internet searches for “adrenochrome” have yielded limited information as to the true significance of that substance, let alone where it comes from, how it is obtained, and who uses it.
There has been a real conspiracy, of bowdlerizing tech companies, to quash not only free speech, but free inquiry as well. If any information were to be found, such as the entry for “adrenochrome” in the Urban Dictionary, there would generally be guidance given for the reader, usually written by some naïve academic, suggesting that adrenochrome is pure fiction, for example: “Author Hunter S. Thompson mentions adrenochrome in his book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. . . . In the DVD commentary, director Terry Gilliam admits that his and Thompson’s portrayal is fictional.” While technically true, that the movie portrayal is fiction, the basis for the portrayal is not.
Indeed, logical thinking on the subject at hand eventually brings up the following line of questioning: If there were nothing of substance to the lore surrounding adrenochrome, why not allow people to read about it and make up their own minds? Is censorship of the terrible truth about adrenochrome vital to the continuing ability of the media to protect the powerful elites they serve? And could it be that public knowledge of adrenochrome might pose a danger to establishment elites who participate in the death-dealing harvest of this life-giving elixir of youth, in hopes of making themselves into evergreen immortals?
Search engines, from Google to Bing, have barred discovery of almost any useful information with respect to issues that seekers of truth and justice care about, especially when it comes to adrenochrome and other such serious matters, until just recently. (One notable exception to the censorship regime has been IBM Watson’s new Yippy browser.)
Before freedom of inquiry was renewed, most of the information available would deride any reference to adrenochrome as “conspiracy theory” or “urban legend.” But this has all changed overnight, as the CEOs of major companies – from Alphabet to Microsoft – have stepped down.
Even Twitter seems to have undergone a reversal in its censorship algorithms. It is as if suddenly the perfect storm had moved into the power vacuum created by the leaving of so many notables in the tech world. Suddenly, a query in search of “adrenochrome” yields many different kinds of information on the substance, shedding light upon a dark subject that has been hidden from view for some time.
What Is Adrenochrome, and Why Do Many Strive to Censor Information Regarding the Substance?
One of the most clearly articulated descriptions of adrenochrome can be found in an article entitled “Adrenochrome Vampirism,” which states the following: “Adrenochrome is a chemical compound (C9H9NO3) created by oxidizing adrenaline with Silver Oxide.
From a pure ‘scientific’ viewpoint of it being studied and published in mainstream forums the only side effects reported were that it may induce schizophrenic episodes, de-realization, and euphoria.
The truth behind the use of adrenochrome is much more sinister than it may initially appear.” Actually, the visual representation of the chemical adrenochrome belies the fact of its malign nature, since, turned on its side, it creates the innocuous impression of a commonplace white rabbit:
Representation of Adrenochrome, the Chemical “White Rabbit”
Leviticus 18:21 says this concerning child sacrifice in specific: “Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the LORD.” This ban on child sacrifice occurs in the section of the Levitical Priestly Code that deals with idolatrous sexual prohibitions, which intimates that ritual sex with children was involved before any sacrifice was made. (This is the same section of Leviticuswhere male-on-male sex, having to do with idolatrous fertility rituals, is forbidden.) Because the “life of the flesh is in the blood,” anyone who “eats any manner of blood” is stealing the life of another to extend one’s own span of years. Indeed, the child sacrifice necessary to obtain this blood is harrowing.
As a Result of Epstein’s Arrest, People Have Begun to Awaken
Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest has exposed the fact that pedophile rings really do exist and that the problem is larger than most people had ever thought to be the case.
The American people are beginning to learn that the “ritualistic Satanic abuse of children used for various ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals” is involved. Children are hurt and even killed, and many who carry out the heinous acts involved are from the upper echelons of political, corporate, and cultural power globally.
Taking Child Ritual Abuse Seriously
As recently as October of 2018, the Prime Minister of Australia gave a speech to his parliament, addressing the matter of child ritual abuse, wherein he spoke the following words: “Why was our system of justice blind to injustice? Why has it taken so long to act? Why were other things more important than this, the care of innocent children? Why didn’t we believe? Today we dare to ask these questions, and finally acknowledge and confront the lost screams of our children. . . . Nothing we can do now will right the wrongs inflicted on our nation’s children. Even after a comprehensive Royal Commission, which finally enabled the voices to be heard and the silence to be broken, we will all continue to struggle. . . . We honour every survivor in this country, we love you, we hear you and we honour you. . . . As one survivor recently said to me, ‘It wasn’t a foreign enemy who did this to us – this was done by Australians.’ To Australians. Enemies in our midst. Enemies. In. Our. Midst. The enemies of innocence.
The crimes of ritual sexual abuse happened in schools, churches, youth groups, scout troops, orphanages, foster homes, sporting clubs, group homes, charities, and in family homes as well. . . . When a child spoke up, they weren’t believed and the crimes continued with impunity. One survivor told me that when he told a teacher of his abuse, that teacher then became his next abuser. . . . Power and position exploited for evil dark crimes.”
This speech was a sobering event in Australia, especially when considering that the existence of “survivors” so strongly implies that there were missing children who did not survive or who were never found.
The prime minister’s address was never brought to light by America’s mainstream media, whose goal is the direct opposite – keeping people in the dark about child ritual abuse, in order to protect their corporate employers and political protectors, while intimidating others not to report such abuse; Vox has put it this way: “Today, it’s a media-fueled scare over crazed clowns [perpetrating Satanic ritual abuse]. But as Satanic Panic shows us, that’s not the real fear. The real fear is that, tomorrow, someone could decide the crazed clown is you.”
So, do journalists working for the mainstream media protect child sex-trafficking and Satanic ritual abuse, because their strings are being pulled by Hollywood, Wall Street, and Washington elites, ultimately to conceal the harvesting of adrenochrome?
Is this why so many in the media are desperate to maintain the open-borders agenda? Are the media, in truth, so anti-Trump, because the president has been putting a stop to human trafficking? Is the supply of sacrificial children dwindling, thereby forcing a Satanic cadre of politicians to enact laws – like the one passed recently in New York – to allow the veritable sacrifice of newborn infants, albeit under the auspices of a woman’s right to an abortion? Is it really implausible to conjecture that a conspiracy of Satanic Ritual Abuse might exist in America’s political Swamp? If the comments of the prime minister of Australia are to be taken at face value, then who can seriously rule out the possibility?
As corporatist CEOs step down, will the sudden transparency that is being enabled by an Internet free of their regime of censorship finally give rise to arrests of child and adrenochrome traffickers? The prospects are now better than they ever have been. It would appear that Justice is coming, although many, understandably, will not believe it until they see it. As a praying man, this author has a different view: We shall see it when we believe it; so, please pray.
This explanation brilliantly vindicates and validates every single American who has questions and doubts about the 2020 election. Beautifully done.
So, without further ado, here’s the best explanation you’ll ever read on why so many Americans believe the 2020 election was a sham:
I think I’ve had discussions w/enough Boomer-tier Trump supporters who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent to extract a general theory about their perspective. It is also the perspective of most of the people at the Capitol on 1/6, and probably even Trump himself.
Most believe some or all of the theories involving midnight ballots, voting machines, etc, but what you find when you talk to them is that, while they’ll defend those positions w/info they got from Hannity or Breitbart or whatever, they’re not particularly attached to them.
Here are the facts – actual, confirmed facts – that shape their perspective:
The FBI/etc spied on the 2016 Trump campaign using evidence manufactured by the Clinton campaign. We now know that all involved knew it was fake from Day 1 (see: Brennan’s July 2016 memo, etc).
These are Tea Party people. The types who give their kids a pocket Constitution for their birthday and have Founding Fathers memes in their bios. The intel community spying on a presidential campaign using fake evidence including forged documents is a big deal to them.
Everyone involved lied about their involvement as long as they could. We only learned the DNC paid for the manufactured evidence because of a court order. Comey denied on TV knowing the DNC paid for it, when we have emails from a year earlier proving that he knew.
This was true with everyone, from CIA Dir Brennan & Adam Schiff – who were on TV saying they’d seen clear evidence of collusion w/Russia, while admitting under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t – all the way down the line. In the end we learned that it was ALL fake.
At first, many Trump people were worried there must be some collusion, because every media & intel agency wouldn’t make it up out of nothing. When it was clear that they had made it up, people expected a reckoning, and shed many illusions about their gov’t when it didn’t happen.
We know as fact:
a) The Steele dossier was the sole evidence used to justify spying on the Trump campaign,
b) The FBI knew the Steele dossier was a DNC op,
c) Steele’s source told the FBI the info was unserious,
d) they did not inform the court of any of this and kept spying.
Trump supporters know the collusion case front and back. They went from worrying the collusion must be real, to suspecting it might be fake, to realizing it was a scam, then watched as every institution – agencies, the press, Congress, academia – gaslit them for another year.
Worse, collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration. They knew their entire lives would be investigated. Many quit because they were being bankrupted by legal fees. The DoJ, press, & gov’t destroyed lives and actively subverted an elected admin.
This is where people whose political identity was largely defined by a naive belief in what they learned in Civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed all institutional boundaries. Because it had stepped out of the shadows to unite against an interloper.
GOP propaganda still has many of them thinking in terms of partisan binaries, but A LOT of Trump supporters see that the Regime is not partisan. They all know that the same institutions would have taken opposite sides if it was a Tulsi Gabbard vs Jeb Bush election.
It’s hard to describe to people on the left (who are used to thinking of gov’t as a conspiracy… Watergate, COINTELPRO, WMD, etc) how shocking & disillusioning this was for people who encourage their sons to enlist in the Army, and hate people who don’t stand for the Anthem.
They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government. But the behavior of the corporate press is really what radicalized them. They hate journalists more than they hate any politician or gov’t official, because they feel most betrayed by them.
The idea that the press is driven by ratings/sensationalism became untenable. If that were true, they’d be all over the Epstein story. The corporate press is the propaganda arm of the Regime they now see in outline. Nothing anyone says will ever make them unsee that, period.
This is profoundly disorienting. Many of them don’t know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know for absolute certain that the press, the FBI, etc would lie to them if there was. They have every reason to believe that, and it’s probably true.
They watched the press behave like animals for four years. Tens of millions of people will always see Kavanaugh as a gang rapist, based on nothing, because of CNN. And CNN seems proud of that. They led a lynch mob against a high school kid. They cheered on a summer of riots.
They always claimed the media had liberal bias, fine, whatever. They still thought the press would admit truth if they were cornered. Now they don’t. It’s a different thing to watch them invent stories whole cloth in order to destroy regular lives and spark mass violence.
Time Mag told us that during the 2020 riots, there were weekly conference calls involving, among others, leaders of the protests, the local officials who refused to stop them, and media people who framed them for political effect. In Ukraine we call that a color revolution.
Throughout the summer, Democrat governors took advantage of COVID to change voting procedures. It wasn’t just the mail-ins (they lowered signature matching standards, etc). After the collusion scam, the fake impeachment, Trump people expected shenanigans by now.
Re: “fake impeachment”, we now know that Trump’s request for Ukraine to cooperate w/the DOJ regarding Biden’s $ activities in Ukraine was in support of an active investigation being pursued by the FBI and Ukraine AG at the time, and so a completely legitimate request.
Then you get the Hunter laptop scandal. Big Tech ran a full-on censorship campaign against a major newspaper to protect a political candidate. Period. Everyone knows it, all of the Tech companies now admit it was a “mistake” – but, ya know, the election’s over, so who cares?
Goes w/o saying, but: If the NY Times had Don Jr’s laptop, full of pics of him smoking crack and engaging in group sex, lots of lurid family drama, emails describing direct corruption and backed up by the CEO of the company they were using, the NYT wouldn’t have been banned.
Think back: Stories about Trump being pissed on by Russian prostitutes and blackmailed by Putin were promoted as fact, and the only evidence was a document paid for by his opposition and disavowed by its source. The NY Post was banned for reporting on true information.
The reaction of Trump people to all this was not, “no fair!” That’s how they felt about Romney’s “binders of women” in 2012. This is different. Now they see, correctly, that every institution is captured by people who will use any means to exclude them from the political process.
And yet they showed up in record numbers to vote. He got 13m more votes than in 2016, 10m more than Clinton got! As election night dragged on, they allowed themselves some hope. But when the four critical swing states (and only those states) went dark at midnight, they knew.
Over the ensuing weeks, they got shuffled around by grifters and media scam artists selling them conspiracy theories. They latched onto one, then another increasingly absurd theory as they tried to put a concrete name on something very real.
Media & Tech did everything to make things worse. Everything about the election was strange – the changes to procedure, unprecedented mail-in voting, the delays, etc – but rather than admit that and make everything transparent, they banned discussion of it (even in DMs!).
Everyone knows that, just as Don Jr’s laptop would’ve been the story of the century, if everything about the election dispute was the same, except the parties were reversed, suspicions about the outcome would’ve been taken very seriously. See 2016 for proof.
Even the courts’ refusal of the case gets nowhere w/them, because of how the opposition embraced mass political violence. They’ll say, w/good reason: What judge will stick his neck out for Trump knowing he’ll be destroyed in the media as a violent mob burns down his house?
It’s a fact, according to Time Magazine, that mass riots were planned in cities across the country if Trump won. Sure, they were “protests”, but they were planned by the same people as during the summer, and everyone knows what it would have meant. Judges have families, too.
Forget the ballot conspiracies. It’s a fact that governors used COVID to unconstitutionally alter election procedures (the Constitution states that only legislatures can do so) to help Biden to make up for a massive enthusiasm gap by gaming the mail-in ballot system.
They knew it was unconstitutional, it’s right there in plain English. But they knew the cases wouldn’t see court until after the election. And what judge will toss millions of ballots because a governor broke the rules? The threat of mass riots wasn’t implied, it was direct.
a) The entrenched bureaucracy & security state subverted Trump from Day 1,
b) The press is part of the operation,
c) Election rules were changed,
d) Big Tech censors opposition,
e) Political violence is legitimized & encouraged,
f) Trump is banned from social media.
They were led down some rabbit holes, but they are absolutely right that their gov’t is monopolized by a Regime that believes they are beneath representation, and will observe no limits to keep them getting it.
Trump fans should be happy he lost; it might’ve kept him alive
ICAN OBTAINS OVER 3,000 PAGES OF TONY FAUCI’S EMAILS | ICAN – Informed Consent Action Network
— Read on www.icandecide.org/ican_press/ican-obtains-over-3000-pages-of-tony-faucis-emails/
Phill Kline, former Kansas Attorney General & current Director of the Amistad
Project: “We already have suits in 6 states, but we’re filing more based on this new data.
A series of decisions at the local level, funded & encouraged by the flow of $350M of #MarkZuckerburg monies that allowed for the infusion of these questionable or fraudulent ballots into the stream to be counted. The analysis, using gov’t data and then calling out to voters, asking them about their behavior and getting them to SIGNED affidavits, is that in EACH ONE of these swings states, there are 100’s of THOUSANDS of ballots in question.
In addition to the ballots in WI [up to 150k improperly filed/counted] we’ve identified over 12,000 REPUBLICANS who voted, whose votes WERE NOT COUNTED according to the state’s data. So what you had was:
• $350M coming in
• the creation of all this drop-box
• consolidated counting centers in the urban core around the nation
• #MarkZuckerburg money paying the election judges & officials inside the rooms…
• while the Republicans in America were kicked out of the counting room.
That CANNOT & SHOULD NOT STAND AS A FAIR and INTEGRAL ELECTION…
#MarkZuckerburg’s monies alone matched the federal gov’t appropriations for elections this year. $400M.
#Google:also gave money to this effort.
• We now have evidence pursuant to court order … that they actually told local election officials how to manage the election in these core Democrat areas where you see all the problems.
That was #MarkZuckerburg and a group called “The Center for Tech & Civic Life”.
I give you this thought:
They told America we need to consolidate counting centers, for COVID! We’re going to create a crowd, to protect us … from COVID!
That makes no sense. The reason they did it, is because they didn’t want Republicans to see, and they wanted to infuse fraudulent ballots … and they did it!
Suit filed in GA at the time of this note. There where 200k ballots.
Facebook’s secret plan to censor vaccine concerns exposed by insiders
‘They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page’
The investigative reporters at Project Veritas on Monday released a video featuring confirmation from two Facebook insiders who described the Big Tech giant’s secret plan to censor comments about the COVID vaccines.
“The company has set up a tier system to rank comments on various scales, based on how much the statement questions or cautions against the COVID-19 vaccination,” Project Veritas reported.
The issue is Facebook’s attempt to “police ‘Vaccine hesitancy’ (VH) through surreptitious ‘comment demotion,'” the report said.
Based on details provided by the insiders, Project Veritas explained Tier 2 of the plan represents “Indirect Discouragement” of getting vaccinated, and those statements would be heavily “suppressed.”
“It doesn’t matter if the comments are true, factual or represent reality. The comment is demoted, buried and hidden from view of the public if it clashes with this system,” Project Veritas reported.
According to one insider, “It doesn’t match the narrative. The narrative being, get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you. Everyone should get it. And if you don’t, you will be singled out.”
Project Veritas obtained “multiple internal documents” detailing the plans, including information on an algorithm test being run on 1.5% of Facebook and Instagram’s nearly 3.8 billion users.
Its goal, Project Veritas explained, was to “drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy (VH) in comments.”
The insider reported, “They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it,” one insider said.
Facebook said, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.” But Project Veritas said the response “failed to address our biggest questions regarding transparency.”
One of the Facebook documents explains, “We aim to identify and tier the categories of non-violating content that could discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal. We have tiered these by potential harm and how much context is required in order to evaluate harm.””
It continues to explain that the agenda was developed because of “concerns that exposure to, interaction with, or production of that content can negatively impact these drivers (in other words, creating barriers to vaccination).”
The company’s solutions to language it opposes including options to “remove at scale,” “remove on escalation,” demotion and more.
The company calls “vaccine interference” “Coordinating (statements of intent, calls to action, representing, supporting or advocacy) OR depicting, admitting to, or promoting interference with the administration of a vaccine, including an event, group, page, account, etc. dedicated to this purpose.”
The company’s stated options for language it cannot tolerate editorially include “remove.”
The chain of command flows down from founder Mark Zuckerberg, who notoriously contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to election officials during the 2020 presidential race with strings attached – local officials were ordered to allow leftist organizations to “help” with the election.
It goes to Facebook “research scientist” Amit Bahl, whose job is on the “Core Data Science Team.”
Source:Continue reading “Facebook’s secret plan to censor vaccine concerns exposed by insiders”