Facebook calls it "weeding out fake news" — Let's call it what it really is — Censorship!

By SJ Otto

Is there a difference between weeding out fake news sites and just plain censorship? This question needs to come up as Facebook and Twitter are doing what they call "weeding out" sites they believe are providing fake news, mostly from Iran and Russia. As Facebook said on its own blog:

"Today we removed multiple Pages, groups and accounts for coordinated inauthentic behavior on Facebook and Instagram. Some of this activity originated in Iran, and some originated in Russia. These were distinct campaigns and we have not identified any link or coordination between them. However, they used similar tactics by creating networks of accounts to mislead others about who they were and what they were doing."

Those two countries are presently at odds with the US government and its foreign policy. It is convenient for the US government that these two countries just happen to be the targets of Facebook's investigation.

A major question might be: "How do we tell if a site is deliberately posting miss-information or is it at odds with our foreign policy?"

What is the difference between a bad opinion and deliberate miss-information? That also leads to other questions, such as "who has a right to their opinion on Facebook?" There are all kinds of pages and sites to display opinions from the far left to the far right. There are several Marxist pages. But Facebook has a policy against any kind of hate speech. That seems to allow them to close down pages by Nazis, little doubt because such sites are ​anti-semitic.

I'm rather amazed that they have allowed the page Democratic Kampuchea-កម្ពុជាប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ. The page has been in Facebook for several years. But we have to wonder how long it will stay?

Just recently Facebook took down accounts of generals and other military leaders from Myanmar, over their opinions defending their regime over charges that they have violated human rights.

According to The Washington Post:

"For the next 24 hours, officials went back and forth on how to respond to the report’s call for Myanmar’s commander in chief — an active Facebook user — to be investigated and prosecuted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes against the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority.

Without consulting the Myanmar government, Facebook on Monday removed Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing’s page from its platform, along with those of other top military brass, and preemptively banned others. The U.N. report “put a deadline on what they were planning on doing anyway,” the person, who was not authorized to talk to the media, added."

The problem here is that these military leaders are not doing anything different from other Facebook members. They posted their opinions. They may be wrong in their opinions. What ever they did they have done nothing different from anyone who post an opinion on Facebook. Violating human rights is a serious crime. But writing an opinion on it is not. It may be repugnant to write such opinions. This may seem as if this is a black and white issue. Myanmar’s military is committing war crimes. No one I know supports Myanmar's military in its participation of war crimes. But maybe it is in all our interest to hear what Myanmar's military leaders have to say about those war crimes. Every person has a right to a fair trial. That is what we have been told our democratic principles have always stood for. That is what we say, as if we really believe it. But if we follow Facebook principles, certain governments and people are not allowed the right to defend themselves when they are accused of wrong doing. With such rules we are devoid of democratic principles.

Today our modern foreign policy principles seem to reflect the Facebook principles. The right to fair trials, in the court of public opinion, are not automatic. Some people and institutions have been cut out of the loop. Judgment has already been decided and there is no appeal process. The leading institutions have been prejudged. People, governments and various institutions have already been judged as guilty. It's a lot like fascism. In fact it is fascism.  

Institutions, such as Facebook and Twitter are near monopolies. There are no real institutions as them, to go to if a person is displeased with them. They are like a government established medium. They act as one government institution, even though they are private. They represent an institution that acts as a branch of the news media. They have great power. They have the ability to create a great establishment of public opinion. As individuals we need to stand up to them and oppose their use of censorship. As time goes on, some of our own blogs and similar institutions stand in danger of being censored, blocked and shut down by these private institutions.

We need to stand up for our rights now before it is too late. Let's oppose censorship!

Pix by OffGuardian.