cognitive infiltration on facebook
some would say “why use facebook”? indeed there are many reasons to dislike, and to insulate oneself from “FB”. two, in particular, are that it is an ideal tool for data trawling by sinister commercial and governmental agencies, and that it offers people a tempting opportunity to immerse themselves even deeper in distracting trivialities.
nevertheless it is at present an available channel for distributing information, and the fact that it is no doubt poured over by misguided and treasonous spooks does not deter me from posting links there. i am not breaking any (current) law of the country i live in (England). i do not much use FB for personal matters – but instead regard myself as a would-be facebook educationalist. i sift materials from my own researches, and post information that i consider adapted to the capacities of the potential audience. i do not get much feedback, but every little counts, in this struggle against the monumental edifice of lies imposed, like a virtual reality, on the sleeping sheeple.
in fact much of the basic FB functionality is useful, or would be useful in a less paranoid world. the telephone is also subject to potential surveillance, as are emails, yet most people i know do use both of these methods of communication.
yesterday i was interested to encounter my first personal example of facebook censorship. although this is one tiny glitch in the massive scheme of things, i thought it worth sharing with the readers of deLiberation, as it does concern the connection between the investigation of 911 and recent attempts to restrict freedom of expression.
it is an amusing fact that when censors acts in an absurdly crude way, it actually serves to draw people’s attention to the very thing they wish to discourage people from looking at. in addition the lengths those who oppose the publication of awkward truths are prepared to go to allows us to gauge how worried they are. from one small incident recently (5/12/2012) i guess they are becoming very alarmed indeed. they simply have not enough fingers to stop up all the holes appearing in the dam walls.
i attempted to share on Facebook a link to what i thought a very good piece on the demolition of the World Trade Centre towers. initially i had tried to ‘share’ it to FB but that just drew a blank. next i tried inserting the link directly into the post.
the mechanics of how one form of FB censorship works.
you get the following message (my italics):
“The content you’re trying to share includes a link that’s been blocked for being spammy or unsafe:
For more information, visit the Help Center. If you think you’re seeing this by mistake, please let us know.”
as an upright citizen i found this extremely offensive to my intelligence. i had no intention of discussing the matter with FB itself, though i would like to see them held to account for their methods of determining what is held to be ‘spammy’ or ‘unsafe’. my first thought was to comment on the censorship itself, and to devise a method whereby i could communicate the URL.
inserting the URL in a post (rather than sharing) did not work. any mention of atspace.com was not permitted.
the following are the few comments i made on FB, after posting the above message from the FB censorship software
actually the link is to a very interesting analysis of the explosions, and relates to the picture in the previous post. so who at FB has decided the link is “spammy or unsafe”? twitter has no problem with it at present. i will try and get round this absurd block in my next comments.
the link is http://911physics.#&.#/Pages/WTC12.htm
replace the first # with the letters ‘at’
replace & with the letters ‘space’
replace the second # with the letters ‘com’
if you check out the site, you will see that it is not in the least ‘spammy’. it is only ‘unsafe’ in the sense of Cass Sunstein. (see next comment)
Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein (now Obama’s “information czar” (!!!) co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled ‘Conspiracy Theories’, in which they wrote, ”The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.”
They go on to propose that, ”the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”, where they suggest, among other tactics, ”Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”
the last quote is from http://www.infowars.com/cognitive-infiltration-an-obama-appointees-plan-to-undermine-the-911-conspiracy-theory/
i once thought “Harvard Law School” must be a reputable institution. instead it now appears to me in the guise a social club for a den of zionist vipers. in this context the name of the infamous Alan Dershowitz sprang to mind.
since deLiberation has a less censorious editorial policy, i will finishing this brief tale with the full URL of the web page FB is so concerned about: