People Need to Reclaim the Internet

Craig Murray writes on his blog:

No matter how much you dislike Trump, only a fool can fail to see the implications for public access to information of the massive suppression on the internet of the Hunter Biden leaks.

This blog has been suffering a ratcheting of social media suppression for years, which reached its apogee in my coverage of the Julian Assange trial. As I reported on 24 September:

Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%.

In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.

It was not just me: everyone reporting the Assange trial on social media suffered the same effect. Wikileaks, which has 5.6 million Twitter followers, were obtaining about the same number of Twitter “impressions” of their tweets (ie number who saw them) as I was. I spoke with several of the major US independent news sites and they all reported the same.

I have written before about the great danger to internet freedom from the fact that a few massively dominant social media corporations – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram – have become in effect the “gatekeepers” to internet traffic. In the Assange hearing and Hunter Biden cases we see perhaps the first overt use of that coordinated power to control public information worldwide.

Murray goes on to talk about the practice of "shadowbanning" and how insidious it is, how it conceals from most users who do encounter the post just how limited distribution really is. He then writes about the Hunter Biden leaks:

In the Hunter Biden case, social media went still further and without disguise simply banned all mention of the Hunter Biden leaks.

As I reported on September 27 last year:

What I find deeply reprehensible in all the BBC coverage is their failure to report the facts of the case, and their utter lack of curiosity about why Joe Biden’s son Hunter was paid $60,000 a month by Burisma, Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer, as an entirely absent non-executive director, when he had no relevant experience in Ukraine or gas, and very little business experience, having just been dishonorably discharged from the Navy Reserve for use of crack cocaine? Is that question not just a little bit interesting? That may be the thin end of it – in 2014-15 Hunter Biden received US $850,000 from the intermediary company channeling the payments. In reporting on Trump being potentially impeached for asking about it, might you not expect some analysis – or at least mention – of what he was asking about?....

...The story now is that Hunter Biden abandoned a laptop in a repair shop, and the hard drive contained emails between Hunter and Burisma in which he was asked for, and promised, various assistance to the company from the Vice President. This hard drive was passed to the New York Post. What the emails do not include is any incriminating correspondence between Hunter and his father in which Joe Biden agrees to any of this – which speaks to their authenticity, as that would be the key thing to forge. Given that the hard drive also contains intimate photos and video, there does not seem to be any real doubt about its authenticity.

However both Facebook and Twitter slapped an immediate and total ban on all mention of the Hunter Biden emails, claiming doubts as to its authenticity and an astonishing claim that they never link to leaked material or information about leaked material.

Murray finishes:

The development of social media gatekeeping of internet traffic is one of the key socio-political issues of our time. We need the original founders of the internet to get together with figures like Richard Stallman and – vitally – Julian Assange – to find a way we break free from this. Ten years ago I would not have thought it a danger that the internet would become a method of political control, not of political freedom. I now worry it is too late to avert the danger.

I encourage all readers to go to Craig Murray's web site and read his full account:

11 users have voted.


wendy davis's picture

'FCC Head and Internet’s Most Hated Man Ajit Pai Just Vowed to Kill First Amendment Rights Online; FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has vowed to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Act on President Trump’s orders in a move that threatens to curb what’s left of Americans’ first amendment rights online’, by Raul Diego,, Oct. 16, 2020

(Verizon hack Pai was appointed by Obomba in 2010)

"Despite claims of bipartisan support for the reform initiative, one of Section 230’s original authors, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), directly challenged Pai’s authority to change the law altogether. Pai has claimed that FCC lawyers have assured him the agency has legal standing to amend the law.

Meanwhile, FCC commissioner and Democratic party member Jessica Rosenworcel denounced Pai’s timing as “absurd” and decried the Chairman’s decision to kowtow to Trump’s executive order, issued earlier this year calling for the agency to reinterpret the law.

[link: ]

Rosenworcel was confirmed for her second stint as FCC commissioner in August 2017, even though Trump had reportedly withdrawn his nomination of the Obama holdover, likely worried over her track record on the commission and her dissenting opinion on Pai’s scrapping of Net Neutrality soon after Trump’s election."

a section on The Twitter setup

Stonewalling America

Appointed FCC Chairman by Barack Obama in 2010, former Verizon company lawyer and the most hated man on the Internet, Ajit Pai, has systematically weakened privacy and access protections for the average Internet user in the service of the giant tech companies like his former employer, which was embroiled in a data privacy scandal in 2013 after leaked documents disclosed classified orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, compelling the largest cell phone carrier network in the country to turn over millions of phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA).

Pai has earned the public’s distrust, especially due to his repeal of Net Neutrality rules, which overwhelmingly favored big Telecom by allowing the industry to manipulate Internet traffic for discriminatory or profit motives. Verizon was one of the first companies to take advantage of the deregulation in ways that contradicted Pai’s own argument regarding the destruction of Net Neutrality, which rested on many of the same free-market clichés used to rationalize all sorts of corporate abuses."

and more.

6 users have voted.

That the Big Tech has entirely too much power and needs to be broken up.

In addition to blatantly engaging in pre-election interference they have
already announced their intention to control the narrative post-election:

Twitter executives have joined with those at Facebook to institute wide-ranging censorship policies targeting political posts they say “falsely claim a win for any candidate.”
The embattled social media company announced Friday that it would add labels to posts that claim a pre-mature victory for any candidate and remove posts they believe interfere with the election process.

Vijaya Gadde, whose title reads “Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead,” and Kayvon Beykpour, a “Product Lead” for Twitter and co-founder or Periscope, announced the draconian changes on the official Twitter blog:

“People on Twitter, including candidates for office, may not claim an election win before it is authoritatively called. To determine the results of an election in the US, we require either an announcement from state election officials, or a public projection from at least two authoritative, national news outlets that make independent election calls. Tweets which include premature claims will be labeled and direct people to our official US election page.

“Tweets meant to incite interference with the election process or with the implementation of election results, such as through violent action, will be subject to removal. This covers all Congressional races and the Presidential Election.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in September that his company would target what it believes is “misinformation” prior to the November 3, 2020, General Election.

Zuckerberg said his organization was banning all political ads during the 7 day period before the elections, removing claims “the company” believes would lead to voter suppression, and would start labeling posts that they believe falsely claim wins on election night.


Funny, in a sick and pathetic way, that it was supposed to be an existential threat to the country that Trump was compromised by the Russians - although the "evidence" that that was so was ultimately found to be manufactured BS. *Yet* when smoking gun level evidence surfaces about the Bidens' nefarious doings that is certain to be in the hands of CHINA (and others) - meaning Joe is an utterly compromised security risk... it doesn't rate an MSM mention.

Not like we weren't warned about where this was headed.

Testimony of Dr. Robert Epstein (former editor of Psychology Today, Democrat, Hillary voter) to Senate Judiciary Committee 2016:

2 users have voted.
usefewersyllables's picture

to "reclaim the internet" expired in September of 1993- the September That Never Ended.

Since then, it has just been down to which new commercial exploiter could get the most traction and shout the loudest. C'est la guerre.

3 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.