Facebook has started blocking alternative media websites

In my previous thread on "fake news", censorship and the suppression of free speech, I reported how the "IT Companies" (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft) decided to take joint action and up the efforts in order to "fight terrorist propaganda".

First reports are now coming out on how apparently Facebook is blocking alternative media websites. Truthstream Media being one of the first caught up in it:

Our link was blocked on Facebook when I tried to share it in so-called “private messages” (obviously realizing that the idea of there being anything private on Facebook is entirely laughable). I was given a warning that the security team found the link to my article was not “secure” and it would have to be removed before I could send a message.

...

My video features a Congressman speaking on the House floor about a very alarming bill that was recently passed — not “fake news”. In fact, if you watch the video yourself, you’ll probably agree with me when I say I wish like hell it was fake.

These are the messages they got from Facebook.







And Natural News is getting messages like these now.



Further proof that we have to take this crackdown on free thought and expression seriously. They will not go down without a fight.

Keep spreading this important information to others.

With all due respect, each of those organizations you mentioned are private entities and not an official arm of or affiliated with the U.S. government. Therefore, they can decide what is acceptable on their systems. If it was to government making those decisions it would be a violation of the 1st amendment, but it is not. This is a very important distinction where the constitution is concerned, and one that many do misunderstand.

a reply to: snchrnct

I can only say here.. .ATS . ..is a private members only site.. .with an owner who it belongs to. So there are rules, Ts and Cs ,things you can and cannot post, and not link to certain sites. That's here and you have freedom of speech.. .but only within the terms of this site.

Whether here or Facebook.. .you must adhere to what you agreed to when you joined.. .Facebook or ATS. Decorum is expected. ..and you can't just talk about anything, in every way.

There are other sites. ..

a reply to: snchrnct

They can pick and choose what they want. You can also complain, if enough do, they may revisit that particular site being blocked in messages.

I am not sure it is because FB doesn't want you or the recipient to see that particular site, possibly it is on a list of sites with malware. FB will receive a list of thousands of these daily from whatever company does that for them.

At mail.com, where I have a few email addresses, when I click on ANY link in an email I get a pop up saying "This link will take you out of mail.com Are you SURE you want to continue?" I sort of appreciate that feature. It may have slowed John Posesta's roll LOL.

That part will give some less tech saavy among us a second to think.

They can, and are doing it. It is legal, it's just bit right.

The line between what is right and what is legal it's pretty obvious in many cases. Hopefully this helps to wake up the masses, rather than prep them for full on propaganda mode

Natural News should be banned here as well.

Like BIN, or Sorcha Faal.
Or Stormfront. Or Veterans Today.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I agree that too many people confuse censorship, as it relates to the 1st Amendment,
with being told how to conduct oneself on a privately owned website.

That being said, there has been overwhelming pressure applied to private sites
to stifle discussion on certain recent and very important topics, by government
and government employees.

So is there a difference in the two?

No! The manipulation of "The Press" is precisely what the First Amendment is supposed
to protect US against.

Of course, it's fine for Liberal business to block whomever they don't like for any reason.

Too bad it's not the same story when a Conservative business blocks whomever they don't like for whatever reason.

originally posted by: lordcomac
They can, and are doing it. It is legal, it's just bit right.

The line between what is right and what is legal it's pretty obvious in many cases. Hopefully this helps to wake up the masses, rather than prep them for full on propaganda mode

c'mon, really?....the right will just say facebook is working for the liberals, and "POOF"!!!.....instant hatred

I've been meaning to start a thread on this topic. Fake news is a former of entertainment as far as I'm concerned. The MSM has shaken the confidence of the public in the quality of the news being reported.

Rather than banning free speech, we should be focusing on why no one trusts the MSM to restore their confidence. Instead of passing legislation in conflict with the first ammendment, maybe what we really need is to pass legislation that requires truthful, accurate and complete reporting for news outlets that desire to be recognized as credible sources. Maybe even guidelines on the amount of airtime allowed or required for certain subjects.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
With all due respect, each of those organizations you mentioned are private entities and not an official arm of or affiliated with the U.S. government. Therefore, they can decide what is acceptable on their systems. If it was to government making those decisions it would be a violation of the 1st amendment, but it is not. This is a very important distinction where the constitution is concerned, and one that many do misunderstand.

So you can choose who you will provide catering to and not based on your own religious convictions as a private business owner.

Thought control pure and simple.

What a joke.......

originally posted by: drewlander
I've been meaning to start a thread on this topic. Fake news is a former of entertainment as far as I'm concerned. The MSM has shaken the confidence of the public in the quality of the news being reported.

Rather than banning free speech, we should be focusing on why no one trusts the MSM to restore their confidence. Instead of passing legislation in conflict with the first ammendment, maybe what we really need is to pass legislation that requires truthful, accurate and complete reporting for news outlets that desire to be recognized as credible sources. Maybe even guidelines on the amount of airtime allowed or required for certain subjects.

You want the government to control truth. Maybe we should pass the same laws for politicians, the president, senate, and congress.

a reply to: snchrnct

It is borderline slander to generalize a source as fake for having once made an error.

By their same logic, everyone who has ever once lied or misspoke could be labeled "fake" and therefor needs to be censored.

Yeah, it's borderline slander for sure.



Is there no one in the world with the resources needed to make copycat sites to replace them? Why do we not have a google or facebook of the people, yet?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Good point, and I agree that there is a difference between the two. However, I think you can't really see and analyze them seperately anymore in this context. Meaning, government, the media and these large corporations are mostly all in bed with each other. On top of that, the call for more censorship is foremust being pushed by GOVERNMENTS (including the US of course).

That being said, how does that work in all of this?

Liberty is the anomaly in this world.

Freedom is always bought with a price.

It's been proven our government and foreign governments pay companies like CNN to more or less run favorable news stories/ propaganda.


Who is monitoring the third party companies tasked with labeling fake news not being bribed by the same governments.

originally posted by: neutronflux
It's been proven our government and foreign governments pay companies like CNN to more or less run favorable news stories/ propaganda.


Who is monitoring the third party companies tasked with labeling fake news not being bribed by the same governments.

No, they buy airtime in the hundreds of millions. That does buy some influence, but not complete ownership. Same as at FOX or any number of places. First they tailor their slant toward the majority of their audience and if their advertisement clients are unhappy, they will take that call. Has been liken that since the dawn of media and especially since ads were accepted in print media and then TV and inernet.

I don't find foreign governments to be bribing the media.

Why not just delete facebook???If you want to tell them how pissed you are at them just stop using their product....When half of the US population unplugs maybe FB will then realize their mistake in playing king censure....

a reply to: reldra

You do know Hillary's campaign team was allowed to edit news regarding Hillary......

And this too......

CNN Reporter Exposes Depths of FAKE NEWS and Pay to Publish by Foreign Govts
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: GuidedKill

Or is just more Fake news as labeled by the US government. You really don't see the trap and effort to dismantle the first amendment?