"Information Warfare," is the exact terminology used by Robert Mueller's team of "13 angry Democrats" in court after indicting 13 Russian nationals and a few Russian business entities, a case that is still being fought in court, with no chance that any of the Russians or companies could be brought to the U.S. to stand trial, which left many believing the indictments were brought just to justify the money spent on the Special Counsel investigation.
The term "information warfare" is highly ironic when highlighting the Russia ad spends to "sow discord," yet everywhere we look these days it is not Russia that is waging an "information warfare" campaign against America, it is the big tech and social media platforms themselves, as they are cracking down on conservatives harder and faster than previously reported.
WHAT ABOUT BIG TECH'S INFORMATION WARFARE AGAINST AMERICANS?
YouTube: ANP was notified by a prominent website owner Wednesday evening that their YouTube channel, which posted their own interviews along with other internet shows with full permissions granted by the interviewers, had been completely demonetized, as part of big techs "information warfare" campaign against Americans that do not toe the liberal narrative line.
Also on Wednesday, Steven Crowder from "Louder With Crowder," announced that his "Change my Mind" videos had been demonetized by YouTube as well. The "Change my Mind" videos are where Crowder sits out in public at a table with a hot button topic on display, saying "I believe (insert topic), change my mind," then he proceeds to civilly and respectfully debate anyone that volunteers who has a different opinion.
Here are a series of his tweets directed at YouTube from April 24, 2019:
To add insult to injury, the previous day, YouTube demonetized another parody video that Crowder's team had created from scratch, claiming it violated copyright content, despite it being all original material. When he appealed, they threatened him with copyright strike if he did not withdraw the appeal. Having a strike limits a creators YouTube features and if three strikes hit an account, YouTube terminates the entire account. To make matters even worse, the copyright claimant, that did none of the work to create the parody video, would receive the advertising revenue instead of Crowder.
Crowder addressed that as well on Twitter, saying "If we literally cannot do a direct parody of a song, create the new parody track from scratch (not a karaoke track) and put in all of the work to create an original music video without being shut down, our channel will cease to exist. #MugClub has never been more necessary."
Sounds a lot like socialism, Crowder does all the work and someone else gets paid for it.
Also on the 24th, black conservative YouTuber and second amendment activist Antonia Okafor was informed by YouTube which is owned by Google (Alphabet) that her entire channel had been demonetized, with YouTube informing her "During a recent review, our team of policy specialists carefully looked over the videos you've uploaded to your channel Antonia Okafor. We found that a significant portion of your channel is not in line with our YouTube Partner Programs policies. As of today, your channel is not eligible to monetize and you will not have access to monetization tools and features......."
Read that very carefully, because after significant backlash from verified Twitter users, tagging @YouTube publicly, complaining that a conservative woman who is the CEO of EmPOWERed, which is an organization that teaches self-defense and second amendment rights to college-aged women across the country, was having her speech suppressed, YouTube reversed their decision. Their statement to Breitbart about her channel being "incorrectly removed," pretty much negates the entire initial claim that a "team of policy specialists carefully looked over the videos," of her channel.
A YouTube spokesperson provided this comment to Breitbart News: “We enforce our YouTube Partner Program policies vigorously, consistently and without any political bias. In the case of this channel, it was incorrectly removed from the Program. With the massive volume of videos on our platform, sometimes we make the wrong call on content. The channel has been reinstated in the YouTube Partner Program.”
I call BS. How does a whole "team of policy specialists," make the same "incorrect" determination? They don't. YouTube just understood that the level of attention their blatant censorship was receiving would cause them more backlash, so they claimed "Oooops, it was a mistake."
As ANP has previously reported, our video channel was completely demonetized months ago.
Facebook: Moving along from YouTube's latest examples of censorship of conservatives, we see Facebook is up to it's tricks again to prevent the dissemination of information that doesn't fit their political ideology, which in others words means their "Information warfare campaign" against conservatives and Independent Media.
On April 10, 2019, Facebook announced in a blog post their new steps to manage "problematic" content, which of course they show no examples of because as we have documented multiple times here at ANP, anything that doesn't fit the radical liberal agenda is treated as "problematic."
The called that post "Remove, Reduce and Inform":
• Kicking off a collaborative process with outside experts to find new ways to fight more false news on Facebook, more quickly. • Expanding the content the Associated Press will review as a third-party fact-checker. • Reducing the reach of Facebook Groups that repeatedly share misinformation. • Incorporating a “Click-Gap” signal into News Feed ranking to ensure people see less low-quality content in their News Feed.
First, who determines what is "false" and "misinformation?"
Sure if someone says the sky is green and grass is purple, that is obviously false, but when questioning the official "narrative' set by liberal media outlets, Facebook and others automatically declare information to be false, yet many, many times, those claims or questions by the independent Media end up being accurate while the liberal "authoritative" media ends up correcting, deleting, changing or apologizing for their mistakes.
For example: In 2016, Facebook and liberal media mocked any claims that Hillary Clinton was not in the best of health, the images were out there of her not being able to walk up a short set of stairs without two members of her security holding her up, or the constant documented instances of her "falling" down. That was all called fake news, misinformation and false, UNTIL she out publicly passed out at the 9/11 memorial and end up being carried into her van.
That look healthy to anyone???? No? Exactly.
Then we have the "Reduce" category and the "Click-Gap" explanation:
Incorporating a “Click-Gap” signal into News Feed ranking. Ranking uses many signals to ensure people see less low-quality content in their News Feed. This new signal, Click-Gap, relies on the web graph, a conceptual “map” of the internet in which domains with a lot of inbound and outbound links are at the center of the graph and domains with fewer inbound and outbound links are at the edges. Click-Gap looks for domains with a disproportionate number of outbound Facebook clicks compared to their place in the web graph. This can be a sign that the domain is succeeding on News Feed in a way that doesn’t reflect the authority they’ve built outside it and is producing low-quality content. Starting today, globally.
In the spirit of Independent websites trying to help other IM sites with links to help mitigate the big tech censorship, we will quote and link to Western Journal for some analysis of this newest tool to censor Independent Media websites and diverse opinions.
But the click-gap signal will cause far more serious problems than it solves.
The click-gap signal is anti-free speech. One of the advantages of a platform like Facebook is that it provides a fertile ground for diverse voices to be heard. It is easier to post a link to Facebook than to be published in the Op-Ed section of The New York Times. Despite what it looks like, not just anyone can get an interview with CNN. Facebook gives — or rather gave — younger, smaller, less established voices a place where they could be heard.
Not so anymore. Or at least not with any hope of success. Facebook is telling websites that unless they already have a big audience outside of Facebook, they shouldn’t come to Facebook looking for help.
That pretty much sums up the nature of what FB is trying to do. This gives full advantage to "news" from NYT, CNN, Wapo, etc... and the narratives they are pushing, despite the numerous examples of outright fake news they have pushed, such as "Russia collusion," hoax they shoved down Americans' throats for the last three years. This limits the amount of diverse opinion that will get seen as they will "reduce" the reach of Independent Media sites.
As the Western Journal writer reminds us "Remember that Facebook is talking about demoting posts from pages that its users already want to follow."
Read the entire piece, it is excellent, especially the amusing analogy to being in a grocery store, filling your cart with items you choose and then having "Zark Muckerburg" make you close your eyes while he removes half your items from the cart, then replaces the ones he left with other brands simply because that is what he wants you to have.
BOTTOM LINE - THIS IS THE REAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE
The internet provides a wealth of information, and as ANP readers have shown us time and time again, people prefer to read differing opinions, different websites, and look at the big picture of any given narrative so that they can have a rounded view before rendering their conclusions, but what big tech and social media are doing is attempting to force Internet users to only "see" one narrative, which happens to be the one that describes the MSM liberal point of view.
By censoring, demoting, demonetizing and limiting the ways to find diverse opinions and websites that question the official narrative, they are in fact, literally interfering in U.S. elections, by refusing to allow access to information that would inform voters of differing viewpoints before deciding who to vote for.
If Russian entities can be indicted for "information warfare," claiming it is election interference, then why are Silicon Valley tech platforms not subject to the same legal repercussions as others that wage information warfare against Americans in order to interfere in U.S. elections?
ONGOING FUNDRAISER:Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.
So ANP is accepting reader donations. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: