Leaders of nations, representatives of international organizations, and philanthropists have claimed their commitment to the establishment of free and open societies. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, asserts that Facebook has independent fact-checkers, welcomes diverse perspectives, and refrains from interfering in elections. Additionally, a representative from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations affirms their support for free speech in response to inquiries from a colleague at Public. However, beneath these statements lies a more aggressive attack on freedom of speech worldwide.
The Digital Services Act, effective today, exemplifies this assault on freedom of speech in various regions, including Australia, North America, and Europe. This act mandates that internet companies address any risks they impose on society, encompassing public health and well-being. A recent investigation by Australia’s Sky News revealed that Meta-Facebook has been paying activists to serve as neutral fact-checkers while covertly employing their authority to censor political opponents.
The context surrounding this revelation involves an upcoming special national election in Australia, known as the Australian Indigenous Voice referendum. This election will decide whether to grant special political powers to indigenous people. Facebook is financially supporting those in favor of the referendum, influencing the censorship of opposing voices. Audit findings of RMIT Voice fact-checks demonstrate that all 17 checks conducted between May and June targeted anti-Voice opinions or viewpoints.
Meta permitted the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) to censor dissenting views, despite being aware that it violated the rules set by Zuckerberg to distance himself from fact-checking responsibilities. As reported by Sky News, the RMIT, a respected technical university similar to MIT in America, repeatedly abused the powers granted by Facebook to suppress Sky News Australia’s journalism by means of false fact-checks.
These fact-checkers abused their authority by branding their political adversaries as racists. Sky News reports numerous code breaches by RMIT’s fact-checkers, including one individual who labeled Opposition Leader Peter Dutton as a fear-mongering racist on her social media account due to his stance on the Voice.
Open Society Foundations’ spokesperson cleverly embedded a call for increased censorship within their response to a query. While asserting that addressing hate speech does not limit freedom of speech, they emphasized the importance of preventing hate speech from escalating into more dangerous actions, such as discrimination, hostility, and violence, which are prohibited under international law. This justification aligns with the reasoning presented by politicians in Ireland and Scotland, who seek to invade people’s homes and confiscate their electronic devices to curb hate materials before they potentially lead to illegal activities. Such an approach resembles the concept of “precrime” enforcement portrayed in the dystopian film Minority Report.
Furthermore, the United Nations is assembling a “digital army” of censorship activists worldwide to combat what it labels as “deadly disinformation.” The UN views “misinformation” as a lethal and existential threat, mirroring the World Health Organization’s perception of speech it disagrees with as a form of pathogen.
An instance in Germany exemplifies the consequences faced by individuals critically comparing COVID lockdowns to Nazism. Writer C.J. Hopkins was either required to pay a fine of 3,600 Euros or face imprisonment for purportedly promoting Nazism, despite his clear intention to express a negative view of such ideology. Similarly, in the United States, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, an organization with ties to the Central Intelligence Agency, successfully orchestrated a boycott against the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) for not adopting more stringent censorship measures. This boycott resulted in a significant decline in X’s advertising revenue.
In summary, Western elites, encompassing government officials, corporate entities, and philanthropists, seem to embrace totalitarian methods reminiscent of the East German Stasi, the Chinese government, and dystopian societies depicted in films like Minority Report. This raises questions about their motivations and prompts consideration of strategies to counter these encroachments on freedom of speech.
Source link
