| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Google Removes Ban on Video When Owner Threatens Report to Gizmodo
If you’ve been watching the news lately, you know social media giant Facebook is currently taking enemy fire because a group of former employees stepped forward and alleged to Gizmodo that Facebook “routinely” suppressed conservative news in its “trending news” feature, even when stories from conservative sites were being circulated widely by Facebook users.
As you’ll learn in the first video below, now that first blood has been drawn against Facebook in relation to their long standing policy of discriminating against conservatives, start to expect A LOT of people to being cocming out of the woodwork who Facebook royally screwed over, and perhaps bankrupted, because it Lord Zuckerberg didn’t agree with someone’s ideology.
One of the biggest stories within that story is the one about Steven Blake Crowder, the well known Canadian-American actor, comedian, host of Louder with Crowder, former contributor for the Fox News Channel, and regular guest on TheBlaze. This week has Officially Filed not a “lawsuit, but a Legal Motion Against Facebook Requesting Information.
Sadly, Facebook is hardly alone in it’s effort to silence dissent. It is joined with Google and Twitter, all of whom are using the same legal “loophole” of sorts to get away with their actions. You can learn below about my own personal video that was banned by Google this week, and how I managed to get my way, and have them repost it, but below I focus on the far bigger issue. In the first video, Crowder suggests you bookmark his page and return often, because he says there is FAAAAAAR more going on behind the scenes than most people know about, which will come out over time.
In your case, it will come out about another 2/3 down the page… a lot of it anyway. Facebook is about to come under assault, and I for one love it!
On it’s face, that behavior by one of the largest companies on earth is utterly despicable, but it hardly stops with just Facebook. Facebook is far from alone in its silencing of conservatives and their views on social media. Google and Twitter are just as bad, but it may not seem quite as overt simply because Facebook is by far the larger and more popular social media site.
As you’ll learn more below, YouTube (owned by Google) recently banned one of my own videos and then threatened to terminate my account this past week, and only after my 4th email containing a threat to contact Gizmodo did they republish it. Before discussing what happened with my video that was banned, I want to make clear that this post will cover the following, which my video below explains.
FACEBOOK | GOOGLE+ | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER
THIS POST WILL OVER:
1. The REAL reason Zuckerberg is acting fast to meet with large conservative media outlets
2. When Facebook Bans conservatives, it is breaching the contract it makes with the user in terms of service
3. Is the contract formed with Facebook a legally binding one?
4. How does the American Bar view Facebook?
5. how close have people come to winning a case against Facebook
6. Where are matters currently?
7. What happened with the video of mine that got banned and later re-instated?
8. Alternatives to Facebook, Google, and Twitter
1. THE REAL REASON ZUCKERBERG IS ACTIN SO FAST TO MEET WITH LARGE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA OUTLETS
Let’s make a few things real clear for people who may have no idea what is REALLY going on with social media unless they happen to be conservative writers like myself. People won’t believe it. First of all… News flash: Mark Zuckerberg isn’t rushing out to meet with conservative leaders as reported by Breitbart because he was unaware of what Facebook was doing, or because he wants to make it right; Zuckerberg is trying to get out in front of the other half of the story that so far has managed to stay suppressed. Zuckerberg hopes he can keep it that way. The other half of that story is that Facebook, Google, and Twitter also routinely engage in banning people who express conservative viewpoints for days or often weeks at a time, which is obviously a growing problem for writers like myself.
In the video below, I explain that in any given month, writers like myself, and AT LEAST 10 other conservative writers I know personally, spend about 1/3 to 1/2 of every of the month BANNED from being able to post in groups we belong to because of our conservative views. In the video I explain how I’ve written to Facebook and to Google on multiple occasions, expressing my desire to stay within their guidelines, if they would only tell me what the heck they are, because they are NOT in Facebook’s Terms of Service or Community Standards, and they are NOT in Google’s Terms of Service or Community Guidelines either. The following as a screenshot of an email I have sent more times than I can count!
Also in the video, I lay out what I believe to be the framework for a potential lawsuit against Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Note: Despite being an attorney, I currently run a small business, and don’t actively practice law. Therefore, my access to legal materials for research is limited, but with the recent developments we’ve seen the last two weeks, I hope someone takes this information and runs with it.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has denied that the social media giant censors news from conservative outlets — and says he wants to meet with “leading conservatives” to discuss the issue.
A report earlier this month by Gizmodo alleged that Facebook “routinely” suppressed conservative news in its “trending news” feature, even when stories from conservative sites were being circulated widely by Facebook users. The report also alleged that Facebook “injected” more acceptable stories, such as coverage of the left-wing Black Lives Matter movement. Facebook denied the allegations.
In a Facebook post Thursday evening, Zuckerberg reiterated that denial, and said he plans to reach out to conservatives:
This week, there was a report suggesting that Facebook contractors working on Trending Topics suppressed stories with conservative viewpoints. We take this report very seriously and are conducting a full investigation to ensure our teams upheld the integrity of this product.
We have found no evidence that this report is true. If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it.
In the coming weeks, I’ll also be inviting leading conservatives and people from across the political spectrum to talk with me about this and share their points of view. I want to have a direct conversation about what Facebook stands for and how we can be sure our platform stays as open as possible.
Zuckerberg has taken explicitly liberal stances on a number of issues, including gay marriage and immigration. Earlier this year, he criticized employees who had crossed out “Black Lives Matter” and written “All Lives Matter” on a wall devoted to free expression in the company’s Melo Park, California headquarters.
“There are specific issues affecting the black community in the United Sates, coming from a history of oppression and racism,” Zuckerberg wrote at the time, arguing why “All Lives Matter” was unacceptable.
On Friday, Breitbart News tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos challenged Zuckerberg to a live debate. FOR MORE NEWS BY VOICE OF REASON CLICK HERE! WWW.THELASTGREATSTAND.COM
2. WHEN FACEBOOK BANS CONSERVATIVES, IT IS BREACHING THE CONTRACT IT MAKES WITH THE USER IN TERMS OF SERVICE
Click-wrap agreements are contracts formed entirely over the Internet. A party posts terms on its website pursuant to which it offers to sell goods or services. To buy these goods, the purchaser is required to indicate his assent to be bound by the terms of the offer by his conduct — typically the act of clicking on a button stating “I agree.” Once the purchaser indicates his assent to be bound, the contract is formed on the posted terms, and the sale is consummated. No paper record is created nor is the signature of the purchaser required.
3. IS THE CONTRACT FORMED WITH FACEBOOK LEGALLY BINDING?
CAN FACEBOOK BE SUED FOR BREACH?
The fact that click-wrap agreements can be enforced does not mean that any particular agreement is in fact enforceable. Contracting parties must still turn to ordinary contract law principles to determine the enforceability of particular agreements.
Traditionally, ‘adhesion contracts’ share four elements:
(1) adhesion contracts are drafted to drastically favor one party;
(2) general enough to apply to numerous transactions;
(3) offered with the representation that, except for price, the drafting party will enter into the transaction only on the terms contained in the document; and
(4) minimize the actionable obligations of the adhering party, predominantly to the payment of the money.
Virtually all e-commerce contracts are prewritten. The three most prevalent e-commence contracts are Internet site ‘terms of use’ agreements, ‘click-wrap’ agreements and implied agreements.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK IN THE NEWSLETTER HERE
FACEBOOK | GOOGLE+ | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER
These three clauses are easy to manipulate and are on the whole determinative of the entire outcome of any contract dispute. In freely negotiated contracts, these clauses are the result of extensive bargaining. In contracts of adhesion, however, the dispute resolution clauses frequently become the means by which businesses maintain legal certainty and predict their own advantage. For example, the forum selection clause, which commonly appears in e-commerce agreements, is employed by the licenser to bring certainty to Internet-based transactions that lack any fixed geographic location.
4. HOW DOES THE AMERICAN BAR VIEW FACEBOOK?
American Bar Association writes:
Online agreements do not always fit neatly within the clickwrap or browse- wrap categories. Sometimes, the agreements display features of both. In Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., the District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the enforceability of the forum selection clause in the hybrid clickwrap- browsewrap agreement between Facebook and its user, requiring that all disputes be litigated in California.
Fteja shows that the more an online agreement resembles a traditional clickwrap agreement, the more willing courts are to find the notice necessary to give rise to constructive assent. Specifically, a major factor for the Fteja court in holding the agreement enforceable was that Facebook informed the user of the consequences of clicking “Sign Up,” and showed the user where to click to understand those consequences.
5. HOW CLOSE HAVE PEOPLE COME TO SUING FACEBOOK AND WINNING?
Generational Opportunity writes:
Unfortunately for Facebook, political beliefs are not classified as a “protected group” by its own definition of hate speech, nor is it mentioned as any cause for content removal. In fact, the site claims to encourage these sorts of discussions and conversations.
Pearson’s case is only one of several that have caused people to call Facebook’s policy into question. From conservatives to liberals to those in between who are being told that Facebook is not a platform for political views, many are concerned with Facebook’s crackdown on content submission.
Facebook’s “Community Standards” are very vague, and they appear to be enforced subjectively. Though Facebook is attempting to promote a positive social environment, the fact of the matter is that if it truly wants to promote the freedom of expression, it should stop attempting to input such strict controls. We realize that Facebook is a private company and can enforce its “Community Standards” as it sees fit. But given the fact that it is such a large social media platform and has the supposed goal of enabling dialogue among users, it would make sense to allow users to express a diverse array of political views.
In another case against Facebook,
Young v. Facebook, Inc., the plaintiff , Karen Beth Young, found herself suddenly banned from Facebook after sending friend requests to strangers. She sued for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as several other claims. In contrast to some of the cases discussed above, the Young court found that “it is at least conceivable that arbitrary or bad faith termination of user accounts … with no explanation at all could implicate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” particularly since Facebook had provided in its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that users’ accounts should not be terminated for reasons other than those described in the Statement. Nonetheless, the court dismissed Young’s suit because her complaint did not su ciently allege that the account termination was undertaken in bad faith or violated Facebook’s contractual obligations.
6. WHERE ARE MATTERS CURRENTLY IN THE LEGAL PROCESS?
In conclusion, the Facebook Terms of Service contract contains significant gaps in its drafting, which if not filled, pose a threat to its legal wellbeing. The clause at issue, as written, fails to adequately explain a great deal of its content, ranging from details of third party assignment of users’ intellectual property to the simple definitions of many of the terms it refers to. These ambiguities open the door to litigation over the extent of parties’ rights under the contract, and even raise the specter of an unconscionable challenge to the Terms of Service. Despite these threats, it is easy to see why Facebook has chosen to allow its Terms of Service contract to remain in such an underdeveloped state even as it has risen to be one of the most widely used websites in existence.
The proposed negligent enablement tort fills the void left by the failure of contract law to give meaningful remedies for the unacceptably high levels of risk of computer intrusions due to defective software.
FACEBOOK | GOOGLE+ | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER
7. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE VIDEO I POSTED AT YOUTUBE THAT WAS BANNED?
The following video explains what happened with the video that was banned, despite the fact it did NOT violate any guidelines, and an actual copy of the video and article can be seen below.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK IN THE NEWSLETTER HERE
FOR MORE NEWS BY VOICE OF REASON CLICK HERE!
THIS IS THE ACTUAL VIDEO THAT WAS BANNED…
HERE IS THE ARTICLE THAT GOES WITH IT.
Edward L. Bernays once said:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
Banning my video only further proves the point! The following was sent shortly after I threatened to contact Gizmodo.
8. GOOD NEWS IS THERE IS A SOLUTION TO GET AWAY FROM THE SURVEILLANCE STATE!
ALTERNATIVES TO FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, AND TWITTER?
FACEBOOK | GOOGLE+ | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER
Seen.Life is the true alternative social media platform to the Draconian censorship policies being employed by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube. Are you a conservative? No problem, no censorship on Seen.Life. Are you a Christian? No problem, no censorship on Seen.Life. Are you a 2nd amendment supporter? No problem, no censorship on Seen.Life.
In January 2016, Facebook launched what it called the “Initiative for civil courage online.” This “initiative” claims to remove hate speech from Facebook by censoring anyone and removing comments of those who promote “xenophobia.” Facebook claims they openly erase “racist” posts from their site, or things that do not meet their “Community Guidelines.” In reality, the “guidelines” are so deliberately vague, Facebook’s PC police of young Ivy Leaguers have plenty of latitude to ban you for virtually anything.
With the way Facebook is headed it’s not going to be a place you want to stay. Sign up and create an account at Seen.Life and get away from the continuous invasive censorship! Seen.Life offers a no censorship, no tracking alternative to Facebook. Seen.Life is where you don’t have to worry about being banned for holding an opinion or publishing your beliefs. There is never any data mining from your profiles, and Seen.Life is not associated with any alphabet soup agency.
If you’re upset you can no longer buy, sell, or trade guns and ammo on Facebook, this is an invitation to check out the Seen.Life site. You will never be required to provide a photo ID or passport just for the “privilege” of keeping your account active, which Facebook has done to countless conservatives. There’s also no limit to your account’s friends. If you’re popular enough to get over 5,000 friends, we think that’s great! More power to you!
ARGUABLY THE BEST FEATURE: The new share feature allows you to post to Seen.Life, and then share to all your other social media sites from one place. There’s no longer a need to be opening up all your social media sites to post news and information that is important to you! Just post to Seen.Life. and share it every where from there.
OBAMA IS DOING HIS BEST TO SILENCE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Feds Suggest Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluations for All Americans (Even Obama?)
Stop Censorship: Time For Us All to Finally Break Google, Facebook and Twitter?
FBI Attempting to Shut Down Alt Media With Oregon Standoff (Recorded Call)
Pentagon: Journalists Classified as ‘Belligerents’ Who Can Be Shot on Sight
The TPP Has a Secret Clause to Limit Free Speech Online – Shocked?
DOJ Creates Gestapo To Target Americans With “Anti-Government Views”
Disastrous “Net Neutrality” Rules Begin Now (Video)
Could Obama REALLY BE SPYING On 2/3 of ALL Reporters? ABSOLUTELY!
Net Neutrality: What it REALLY Means, & How it REALLY Impacts You
Senator Feinstein (Go Figure) Trying to Take Away First Amendment!
Democrats Now Pushing to Regulate “CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES
HAD ENOUGH YET? – Democrats’ Push to Criminalize Dissent
MORE ON FACEBOOK SHADINESS!
Warning: Facebook Tied To Jade Helm, Artificial Intelligence, and Bilderbergs
What Is Facebook Spying on Now, and How Do I Stay Safe?
You Gave Facebook Messenger Permission To Spy On You Using a Hot Mic (Video)
Facebook Says It Will Help Security Services Identify Potential “Terrorists”
Facebook Now Has a New Way They Will Be Targeting Conservative Pages
GOVERNMENT ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR ANTI-OBAMA FACEBOOK POSTS
Facebook Onboard With Censoring Anti-Obama National Protest Information!
Facebook’s Recent “Experiment” ACTUALLY Beta Testing For How To Influence Future Elections
Facebook Tinkered With Users’ Feeds For a Massive Psychology Experiment
RELATED TWITTER ARTICLES:
How Will Twitters New Relevancy Over Recency Algorithm Affect Brands.
Twitters New Algorithm Raises De-Democratization Fears
Twitters New Trust and Safety Council is a Desperate Measure for Desperate Times
Safety Council Makes a Mockery of Free Speech
Twitters Second Biggest Shareholder, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal
Twitter does ‘1984,’ suspends conservative blogger for no apparent reason
Twitter enlists ‘gay’ thought police
Liberals on Twitter respond to GOP victory: Kill Republicans
Washington software developers start conservative social media website
Allen West asks: ‘Is Facebook censoring conservative content?’
SUBSCRIBE TO THE TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK IN THE NEWSLETTER HERE
FACEBOOK | GOOGLE+ | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLR
FREE GUIDE TO ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OR MARTIAL LAW…
AT THE OFFICIAL BLOG SITE BELOW!
FACEBOOK | GOOGLE+ | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER
It is what hostile powerful Jews do. http://judaism.is/perpetrators.html
it’s not just the censorship from these big four names it’s all the spying they do for the CIA/NSA too.
Throw in Microsodt and Ebay with these other big all american names and you are talking about 90% plus of the worlds internet traffic and it’s all being recorded and feed into A.I systems.
Google is killing the internet and small sites are droping dead all over the place because these big names work as a team to lock compition out so unless you pay someone like google then the only new visitors you get are web-bots that all pretend using the “Referer” string in the HTTP header that they got sent to your site from a google search.
Wikipedia is another liberal outlet that has removed several postings I have made that didn’t fall in line with their liberal biases.