Facebook is not a private company

If "Facebook Is Private", Why Are They Feeding Users' Private Messages Directly To The FBI?

Despite decrying censorship when it was happening to them last year, when Donald Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook earlier this month, the left praised the move by big tech. “Facebook is a private company and can do what they want,” the pro-censorship hypocritical crowd chanted ad nauseum through the digital ether after bad orange man was silenced. But as we have said time and again, Facebook being private is simply not true.

Now, however, Facebook has made an unscrupulous Faustian bargain with the federal government which should eliminate all doubt once and for all. They are now willfully handing over private messages of Trump supporters who talked about the events at the capitol on January 6 to the FBI. ....

Deferring all responsibility for the planning of the raid on the capitol, Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg had stated shortly after the incident that the protests were largely organized off Facebook. However, she was not telling the truth, and likely knew that large portions of the pro-Trump protests were talked about and organized on Facebook. But was Facebook wiped off the internet like Parler? No, no it was not. Here’s why.

This week, Facebook began furnishing the Federal Bureau of Investigation with data on Trump supporters who discussed the events at the capitol on their platform - up to and including their private messages. Through this action the social media giant is acting as a de facto intelligence collecting arm of the US government.

In contrast, when Syed Farook, otherwise known as the San Bernardino mass shooter, wouldn’t unlock his iPhone for the feds, Apple refused to create a backdoor for them to access it acting as an actual private company supporting the privacy rights of its customers. But Facebook is more than willing to open up its data mining services for their friends in the federal government — because, as we have stated numerous times, Facebook is not private. ....

As TFTP reported in 2018, Facebook announced that it partnered with the arm of the government-funded Atlantic Council, known as the Digital Forensic Research Lab that was brought on to help the social media behemoth with “real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.”

The Atlantic Council is the group that NATO uses to whitewash wars and foster hatred toward Russia, which in turn allows them to continue to justify themselves. It’s funded by arms manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. It is also funded by billionaire oligarchs like the Ukraine’s Victor Pinchuk and Saudi billionaire Bahaa Hariri.

The list goes on. The highly unethical HSBC group — who has been caught numerous times laundering money for cartels and terrorists — is listed as one of their top donors. They are also funded by the pharmaceutical industry, Google, Goldman Sachs and others. However, the funding that comes from the United States, the US Army, and the Airforce directly negates the “private” aspect of the partnership.

The “think tank” Facebook partnered with to make decisions on who they censor is directly funded by multiple state actors — including the United States — which voids any and all claims that Facebook is a wholly “private actor.”

The Atlantic Council wields massive influence over mainstream media too, which is why when this partnership was announced, no one in the mainstream press pointed it out as the Orwellian idea that it is. Instead, headlines such as “US think tank’s tiny lab helps Facebook battle fake social media(Reuters)” and “Facebook partners with Atlantic Council to improve election security (The Hill)” were put out to spin the fact that a NATO propaganda arm is now censoring the information Americans see on Facebook. ...

From government funded censorship arms to the revolving door of high level bureaucrats who fill the ranks of the oligopolies, the “private company” Facebook concept comes crashing down when taking a closer look. Private-sector firms do not need to be explicitly nationalized to further the establishment’s interests; it’s enough to install their alumni in top regulatory positions. Through these methods, Facebook can put on the façade of privatization while actually acting as deputies for the state but alleviating any constitutional checks in the process.

All the while, whenever the censorship acts in their benefit, half of the masses cheer it on and defend it, keeping resistance at a minimum.

What’s more, as the government hangs the threat of antitrust litigation over their heads, it can force these companies to act in their benefit even without explicit partnerships like that of the Atlantic Council.

There’s more you should read. I left a lot out. When a ‘private company' is working with a government to censor free speech that’s fascism. Or totalitarianism. We’ve been living under inverted totalitarianism for a long time and people shouldn’t be cheering either censorship or fascism. IMO.

Tags: 
Share
up
9 users have voted.

Comments

is not supported by statute or code.
No matter how cooperative Facebook might be, they are the very exemplar of a private corporation who, to stay in business, is cooperating with the FBI.
Without giving up attorney-client privilege, I would not hesitate to cooperate with the FBI. I am not incorporated, but have a business.
Cooperate, or get served with a search warrant, in other words.

up
9 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@on the cusp

They are giving the info to the FBI free of charge. I strongly disagree with this:

No matter how cooperative Facebook might be, they are the very exemplar of a private corporation who, to stay in business, is cooperating with the FBI.

With their connection to the IA since creation, FB is just another arm of them and especially when they share their private member info with them without warrants. You are a lawyer. How would you feel if you info was given to them for any reason? The guy who exposed Vault 7 is also charged with child porno that was just found on his computer. Was he in to kiddie porn or was it planted? That was why I flipped when people say that they have nothing to hide. Not that they are aware of because if they can take from computers they can add to them too. This is that slippery slope stuff IMO.

up
4 users have voted.

In a free country civil liberties are not only for certain groups.
So this is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause.
The donor class doesn’t want it, and Americans elect the bribed. So suck it up.

@snoopydawg has not already been shared. How do I feel about it? Disgusted.
I think you might have missed the point about search warrants. All passing information does is keep warrants from being issued.
Sometimes it takes minutes, sometimes weeks, to get all evidence listed in a warrant. Business activity, in the meantime, is interrupted or even halted.
Since Google is not bound to keep the information private, it is a business decision to fully cooperate.
I had a client have all his computers seized by state authorities to be examined by an FBI agent. 3 years later the client died. He never had his property returned.
I am unfamiliar with the Vault 7 guy's kiddie porn problem. I leave it to computer tech experts to make the case whether it was planted or not.
Nobody should accept the fascism that exists, but the problem of info sharing does not have a legal result to our liking or to our benefit.
Until a law is enacted, this is simply the way it is and will be.

up
4 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@on the cusp

stopped naming it than, or, naming it at all, but the same tactics are still going on every day.

be well and have a good one.

up
3 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

enhydra lutris's picture

doesn't make the corporates government, it makes the nation fascist. That corporate-governmental symbiosis is the very definition of fascism. Our government, for example, is a good example.

be well and have a good one

up
8 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

@enhydra lutris Google is simply not a wing of government, thus it is not governed by the Constitution.

up
4 users have voted.