QATAR-RUN AL JAZEERA POSTS VIDEO ATTACKING ALABAMA LAW. THE MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY JAILS WOMEN FOR ABORTION

Qatar-Run Al Jazeera Posts Video Attacking Alabama Law. The Middle Eastern Country Jails Women For Abortion

Al Jazeera did not portray a person in favor of H.B. 34 in the video

BY MARY MARGARET OLOHAN

  • Gov. Kay Ivey signed the Alabama Human Life Protection Act into law Wednesday.

  • Al Jazeera posted a Facebook video that shows a woman explaining why the legislation endangers women.

  • Al Jazeera is based out of Doha, Qatar, a country where abortions are not permitted in almost all cases.

Middle Eastern news outlet Al Jazeera posted a Facebook video portraying Alabama abortion legislation as dangerous, but Al Jazeera’s home country of Qatar imprisons women for unauthorized abortions.

The Facebook video describes abortion legislation, H.B. 314, the state’s governor signed into law Wednesday. “People are going to die,” Helmi Henkin, an abortion rights activist, said in the video posted Wednesday.

Al Jazeera did not portray a person in favor of H.B. 314 in the video.
CAP

Al Jazeera is based out of Doha, Qatar, a country where abortions are not permitted in almost all cases. Qatari law mandates that women who procure abortions “without medical necessity” be sentenced up to three years of prison time, according to the Al Meezan Qatar Legal Portal. Men or doctors who procure abortions for Qatari women can be sentenced to 10 years of prison time.

Qatar is one out of 33 developing countries that ban abortion except in cases where abortions would preserve the health of the mother, according to a 2017 report from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that globally pushes sexual and reproductive health and rights. Guttmacher noted Qatar makes exceptions for abortions when there are fetal anomalies, which are commonly referred to as birth defects that could affect the pregnancy or the child’s quality of life.

“BREAKING,” Al Jazeera tweeted Tuesday. “Alabama’s Senate voted to outlaw abortion. The law: – Makes performing abortion a felony – Does not make exemptions for rape, incest – Only allows abortions to prevent serious health risk to the mother – Would go into law 6 months after the governor signs it.”

CAP

A Syria policy adviser for the charity Help Refugees, Oz Katerji, responded in a tweet. “In Qatar, abortions are only legal if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Women who receive an ‘unauthorised’ abortion face 5 years in jail,” Katerji said.

CAP

“I respect a lot of the work AJ do, and I think it is crucial that people unite in condemnation of this barbarism taking place in US states, but the hypocrisy here is staggering,” Katerji continued.

CAP

“Opponents to the law have been very vociferous in their outcry, saying that this would punish rape victims and it would push women to seek abortions underground in unsafe procedures,” Al Jazeera correspondent Heidi Zhou-Castro said, according to an Al Jazeera article. The article includes perspectives of those both for and against H.B. 314.

The Alabama Senate passed H.B. 314 Tuesday, a near-total ban on abortions that makes no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill into law. The law, which will take effect in six months, is the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S. (RELATED: Alabama’s Near-Total Abortion Ban Spares Women, Would Send Abortion Doctors To Prison)

The only exception is for when “abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk,” according to the bill’s text. All other abortion procedures are classified under the new law as Class A felonies, punishable by up to 99 years in prison. The abortion provider would be charged with the felony, but the mother would not be charged.

“Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature,” Ivey said in a statement. “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

Al Jazeera did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Facebook bans Italian populist pages ahead of EU elections

By   

The social media giant Facebook has banned 23 noteworthy Italian populist pages with 2.5 million followers just two weeks ahead of the highly anticipated European elections.

The vast majority of the 23 pages that were banned supported Italy’s currently governing coalition made up right and left wing populist parties La Lega (The League) and the 5-Star Movement (MS5), Italy’s La Stampa reports.

Facebooks cited ‘hate speech’ and ‘divisive content’ regarding vaccines, immigrants, and Jewish people as justification for the drastic move.

Apparently, the tech giant’s decision to ban these pages was informed by a report which was created by a leftist NGO by the name of Avaaz, which claims to focus on environmental campaigns and what they regard as ‘human rights’.

A spokesperson from Facebook commented, saying, “We thank Avaaz for sharing its research so we could investigate…We are committed to protecting the integrity of the EU elections and around the world. We have removed a series of false and duplicate accounts that violated our policies on the subject of authenticity, as well as several pages for violation of the policy on changing the name.”

“We have also taken action against some pages that have repeatedly spread misinformation. We will take further measures if we find other violations,” the spokesperson added.

In Avaaz’s report, which was presented to Facebook earlier this month, the NGO claimed that it had discovered 14 Italian networks operating on social media platform which included 104 pages, 6 groups, with a reach of more than 18.2 million individual users.

Of these networks, actions taken by Facebook this week targeted 23 of its pages – totaling nearly 2.45 million individual users and 2.44 million interactions over the past three months.

On top of this, Facebook has also apparently ‘weakened’ pages that it has arbitrarily deemed to be spreading content containing ‘fake news’ – presumably limiting their visibility to Facebook users.

Facebook asserts that its primary motivation for banning these pages was that the page creators had initially chosen page themes which didn’t cite any involvement with political parties or movements, but which had later switched the themes.

Included among the banned pages are ‘Lega Salvini Premier Santa Teresa of Riva’, ‘We want the 5-Star Movement in government’, which had 129,000 followers and nearly 700,000 interactions in just three months, ‘Lega Salvini Sulmona’ — which had 307,000 followers – ‘We Are 5 Stars’, as well as ‘Beppe Grillo for President’.

Facebook’s most recent efforts in Italy to influence this May’s European elections are only the tip of the iceberg, according to Italian media.

Earlier this month, Facebook opened up a ‘war room’ in Dublin, Ireland with 40 teams of full-time engineers, researchers, threat specialists, scientists, and experts for each country who devote their efforts to the European electoral campaign, according to the Italian La Repubblica.

Apparently, there are 500 individuals working on the elections, with the help of 21 so-called ‘fact checkers’, working in 14 different languages.

Buzzfeed Attacks A 14-Year Old Girl, Tries To Get Her Banned From YouTube For Hurting Their Feelings

By 

In just another day for the dumpster fire that is Buzzfeed “News,” activist “journalist” Joe Bernstein wrote up an article targeting a 14-year old girl who makes YouTube videos for the crime of having right-wing political views.

The article, titled “YouTube’s Newest Far-Right, Foul-Mouthed, Red-Pilling Star Is A 14-Year-Old Girl,” desribes a YouTuber going by the name “Soph,” who makes videos with social commentary about current events and culture, often filled with vulgar language one wouldn’t expect to come from a 14-year old girl.

Bernstein quickly makes his reason for publishing the article clear, seeming to make a call for her removal from the platform in his sub-title, writing: “‘Soph’ has nearly a million followers on the giant video platform. The site’s executives only have themselves to blame.”

The majority of his article is targeting one video in particular, where the YouTube star wears an Islamic chador and makes a joking apology for comments she made about Islam.

WATCH BELOW (WARNING, VULGAR LANGUAGE):

In the video, Soph uses absurdist comedy in her commentary about Islam, where she does touch on a lot of issues prevalent in radical Islam.

Starting off the video, she declares that she has “become a devout follower of the Prophet Muhammad,” describing it as mostly being a “f*** ton of fun,” despite having to be raped by her 40-year old husband.

She also discusses Muslim rape gangs, which are a very real thing in the Islamic world.

For doing this, Bernstein believes that YouTube should shut her down.

He claims that the platform is exploiting children by allowing them to have right-wing views on the platform, writing:

“Users — and more importantly to YouTube, advertisers — have over the past year started to hold the platform accountable for enabling the exploitation of children and exposing them to disturbing content. But this video reveals an entirely different way the platform is harming kids: by letting them express extreme views in front of the entire world. This is what indoctrination looks like when it’s reflected back by the indoctrinated.”

Since the release of the article, Soph appears to have begun facing targeting from YouTube, being temporarily blocked from uploading  on the platform.

Along with trying to get her shut down, Bernstein called her father to try to get comment for the story, something Sophia Levin, the former New Yorker journalist who was fired after lying about an ICE agent being a Nazi did as well.

CAP

The targeting of Soph is almost certainly due to her massive reach online.

She has amassed a massive audience of over 800,000 subscribers on YouTube, along with bringing in over $1,400 a month from monthly donors on Patreon.

Her  popularity can likely be credited to a growing resentment for the “social justice warrior” culture among young people growing up in the Internet age. With free access to information, many young people in Generation Z, or what Soph would call “Zoomers,” are finding themselves latching onto more conservative viewpoints in rebellion to the status quo of the previous Millennial generation.

This seems to be a clear attack on Soph for her beliefs, as they have in the past written glowing articles defending young kids who hold left-leaning views.

Just three days before Bernstein’s article, Buzzfeed wrote up an article defending an 11-year old “drag queen” who was reported to child protective services. That same child was spotted dancing on stage at an adult gay club while throngs of adult men showered him with money.

Bernstein, who has long targeted those holding anti-social justice warrior views, by evidence of his similar targeting of former Adult Swim star Sam Hyde, was also exposed by journalist Nick Monroe for holding his own extremist views.

In a Tweet, Bernstein once said “KILL a straight white man on your way to work tomorrow”.

CAP

So this is the left in 2019. Targeting 14-year old girl for holding opinions they don’t like.

The CNN search engine? Google favors stories from liberal news sites, study finds

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.03.29 PM

When it comes to political bias online, left-leaning Facebook and Twitter have been the most common punching bags, but a new study confirms that Google’s search algorithms are also skewed in favor of liberal viewpoints.

Researchers from Northwestern University performed an “algorithm audit” of the ‘Google Top Stories’ box, which is a major driver of traffic to news publishers and therefore prime online real estate. They examined results for nearly 200 searches relating to news events for one month in late 2017 and found “a left-leaning ideological skew.”

ALSO ON RT.COMGoogle flipped seats, shifted millions of votes to Dems in 2018 midterms, researcher tells RT

 

The researchers did allow some leeway for Google to defend itself, however, saying that while the left-leaning bias was detected, it is possible that the dominance of particular sources is a result of “successful strategic behavior” by those sources to achieve “algorithmic recognizability” — but whatever the reason, liberal sources still far eclipsed conservatives ones.

CNN, perhaps the outlet most-reviled by conservatives, was Google’s overall favorite source. Of the 6,302 articles appearing on Google’s ‘top stories’ during the month in focus, more than 10 percent came from CNN. The New York Times and Washington Post were up next, garnering 6.5 and 5.6 percent of the results, respectively.

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.06.37 PM

Fox News, the most mainstream right-wing outlet, was the source for only 3 percent of stories appearing in the top box. Then it was back to liberal outlets, with the BBC, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Politico and ABC News filling out the rest of the top 10. Overall, 62.4 percent of the most common sources were left-leaning, while only 11.3 perfect were said to be right-leaning.

Ironically, despite the heavy promotion from Google in the online realm, CNN’s overall audience declined by a colossal 26 percent in April compared to a year earlier — and network boss Jeff Zucker admitted last November that CNN’s audience just “goes away” any time the channel switches from its (overwhelmingly negative) coverage of President Donald Trump to other topics. So it seems CNN is stuck in a vicious cycle; criticized for focusing too much on negative Trump stories, yet not being able to stop for fear of losing more viewers.

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.08.55 PM

Perhaps an even more damning indictment than Google’s detected liberal bias, however, is that nearly all (86 percent) of the stories promoted by the search giant came from just 20 sources across the entire internet, which doesn’t exactly display much of a commitment to diversity of information and opinion.

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Poisonous connection’ of big tech: Google staff confer over anti-Trump search tweak

Publishers selected for the top box receive “a significant boost in traffic” which demonstrates Google’s ability to “pick winners and losers” based on where they decide to direct most of our attention. Such power and bias in favor of major sources could also be linked to the decline of local news, which is competing in an unfair online environment, the study suggested.

The detection of Google’s left-leaning preferences will hardly come as a shock to conservatives, who have been complaining in recent years that powerful online platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google have all shown clear bias against conservative perspectives. The grumbling has not been without cause, either.

Most recently, Facebook slapped a number of popular conservative commentators with permanent lifetime bans — and Twitter has been caught out ‘shadowbanning’ Republicans and is accused of being quicker to suspend or ban conservative users over liberals for alleged rule-breaking.

Yet, while Facebook and Twitter have engaged in what many analysts and critics are calling direct political censorship, the story is more complicated when it comes to Google.

The researchers found that it’s not simply whether a source is left or right-leaning that determines whether it goes into the top stories box. Writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, one of the study authors acknowledged that there appears to be more news produced on the left overall, something which also affects the results. Even so, Google’s curation algorithms were still found to be “slightly magnifying” the already left-leaning skew in online news production.

Then there’s the bias toward timeliness; the fresher the story, the more likely it was to be promoted in the top box. The researchers called this Google’s “predilection towards recency” and said that huge news organizations like CNN which have the potential to quickly generate fresh content “may be better positioned” to garner more attention.

If Google really values diversity, the authors suggest it should acknowledge that high-quality journalism can have a longer shelf life and “consider relaxing the timeliness constraint to widen the scope of sources available to its curation algorithm.”

ALSO ON RT.COMFive examples that show internet censorship is as much a threat to the left as the right

The results put to bed the notion, promoted by many Democrats and liberals that Google algorithm bias is a myth. Rep. Jerry Nadler last year called the notion of liberal bias online a “delusion” and a “right-wing conspiracy theory” — although Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee is still a chief proponent of the disproven conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

Google has always denied that it is politically biased or abusing its monopoly position, but it looks like the search engine has plenty of work to do on its curation algorithms before it can convince anyone of its fairness.

Facebook co-founder says it’s ‘time to break up’ the social media giant in scathing op-ed

CAP

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has called for the break-up of the social media behemoth and lamented the “staggering” and “unchecked” power of CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a lengthy and searing oped.

Hughes co-founded Facebook with Zuckerberg in a Harvard dorm room in 2004 and watched “in awe” as the company grew over the last 15 years — but said he now feels a “sense of anger and responsibility” about how all-powerful and out-of-control the social media giant has become.

Lashing out at the company, Hughes wrote in a piece published by the New York Times that Zuckerberg’s power and influence goes “far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government.”

See the source image

“There is no precedent for [Zuckerberg’s] ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people.”

Hughes berates Facebook over “sloppy privacy practices,” “violent rhetoric and fake news,” and the “unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention.” It’s not that Zuckerberg is a bad person, he writes, but “he’s human” and his focus on growth “led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks.”

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burningHughes also bemoans the fact that the powerful CEO controls three core communications platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) and says that lack of competition, market or government regulation is a major problem. If a competitor crops up, Zuckerberg can simply choose to shut it down “by acquiring, blocking or copying it” in the manner it did with the Instagram and WhatsApp mergers.

The lack of competition means that “every time Facebook messes up, we repeat an exhausting pattern: first outrage, then disappointment and, finally, resignation.”

See the source image

“Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered.”

Hughes also worries that Zuckerberg has “surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.” He believes that neither Facebook’s offer to appoint a “privacy czar” or the expected Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine of $5 billion will be enough to rein in the company.

The answer and solution lies in more government regulation and subsequent market competition, Hughes says. But Facebook isn’t afraid of just “a few more rules,” so the action needs to be more dramatic, he suggests.

“The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.”

That will involve separating Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram into three individual companies and banning future acquisitions “for several years.”

The FTC should never have permitted these mergers, but it’s “not too late to act.” There is “precedent for correcting bad decisions,” he says, pointing to 2009 when Whole Foods settled antitrust complaints by selling off the Wild Oats brand and stores it had acquired years earlier.

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burningHe notes that time is of the essence, however, as Facebook has been working quickly to integrate the three platforms, precisely in order to make splitting them up more difficult.

“Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American. It is time to break up Facebook.”

Hughes also suggests the creation of a new government agency specifically to empower Congress to regulate tech companies and protect user privacy.

He says the agency should “create guidelines for acceptable speech on social media” while noting that the idea might seem “un-American” at first. The standards therefore should be “subject to the review of the courts” and would be similar to already accepted rules on speech like not shouting “fire” in a theater, provoking violence or making false statements to manipulate stock prices.

Ultimately, he says, an aggressive case taken now against Facebook would persuade other behemoths like Google and Amazon to “think twice” about stifling competition out of fear that “they could be next.”

Anti-Defamation League Admits Colluding with Tech Giants to Facilitate Big Brother Censorship

CAP

This organization that foments hate against conservatives is doing everything in its power to manifest the Orwellian Nightmare.

By 

With pro-Trump voices being booted from Facebook and the social media crackdown ramping up before 2020, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is bragging about the legwork they have done to build up to this moment.

The ADL, once considered an admirable pro-Jewish organization that combated anti-Semitism, has turned into a partisan political censor facilitating Big Brother and trying to stifle President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.

They admitted as much during a summit with the uber-globalist Council on Foreign Relations earlier this year where the organization’s leader bragged about enabling the tech giants’ push for extreme Draconian censorship.

“We work with Google on using AI to try and interrupt cyber-hate before it happens,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, Chief Executive Officer and National Director of the ADL, about his organization’s trailblazing work in the field of Orwellian pre-crime.

“We work with YouTube to get them to change their algorithms so it lessens the likelihood that a young person is going to run into some of these anti-Semitic conspiratorial videos,” he added.

Greenblatt brought up Facebook specifically and how the ADL enables the tech giant’s ability to manipulate information for the purposes of combating alleged hate. He deployed double-speak to justify his organization’s anti-constitutional push.

“So there are different ways [Facebook] can tweak their algorithms and adjust their products so they think not only about free speech… but protect the user’s right to not be harassed or hated,” he said.

He was particularly laudatory toward Facebook in how they were a front-runner in leading the charge toward Big Brother.

“They have done some good things to deal with very specific cases by taking swifter action when people perpetrate online bullying or online harassment,” Greenblatt said.

He feels that legislators should take further action in passing bills that would further destroy freedom of expression and other core liberties.

“There is a gap in the legal regime. There are techniques that extremists have used online to terrorize Jews and other people like doxing, and swatting and different forms of cyberbullying that are not covered by existing laws and need to be,” Greenblatt said.

He doesn’t seem particularly considered with left-wing terror groups like ANTIFA deploying these harmful tactics though. Democratic leaders like Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) do not seem to be on his organization’s radar. Instead, his focus is entirely on restricting the speech of conservative and right-wing voices.

Greenblatt concluded by saying that “the abuse online can be far, far worse than anything physical” and that “we need legislators to catch up and fill some of the gaps.”

While the fake news media likes to ballyhoo about the Rooskies, it is organizations like the ADL that pose the real threat to the integrity of our democracy.

Report: Facebook Sets Up ‘War Room’ for European Elections

Zuckerberg to face pressure on taxes in meeting with Macron

By Lucas Nolan

Politico recently profiled Facebook’s new “European election war room” ahead of upcoming E.U. elections.

A recent report from Politico provides an insight into Facebook’s new “election war room” established ahead of the upcoming European election. Facebook has previously deployed a similar “war room” in the United States ahead of the midterm elections in November 2018. In October, Breitbart News reported on the war room providing an insight into the aim of the project. Facebook’s Product Manager of Civic Engagement, Samidh Chakrabarti, said in an interview that the war room is a physical room which will be used to “take quick and decisive action” against possible cases of foreign interference during the midterm elections.

See the source image

“We have many measures that we’ve put in place to try to prevent problems: the political ad transparency, blocking fake accounts, combating foreign interference, and preventing the spread of misinformation. But we know we have to be ready for anything that happens,” stated Chakrabarti. “And so that’s why we’ve been building this war room, a physical war room [with] people across the company, of all different disciplines, who are there. So, as we discover problems that may come up in the hours leading up to the election, we can take quick and decisive action.”

Now, Politico has reported on the company’s efforts to establish a similar project in Dublin, Ireland ahead of the upcoming European elections. Politico described the project writing:

See the source image

The group of twentysomething coders, engineers and content specialists sit hunched over multiple screens, scanning the platform for potential illegal behavior. Wall-mounted television monitors keep them up to date on the latest chatter on the world’s largest social network, Instagram and WhatsApp. A single European Union flag hangs on the wall, next to a poster emblazoned with the slogan “New Ways of Seeing.”

Yet despite Facebook’s  40-person European election “operations center,” which got underway on April 29, the tech giant is struggling to keep on top of the threats.
Political groups from Hungary to Spain have been able to circumvent Facebook’s new political transparency tools to quietly buy partisan social media advertising aimed at swaying potential voters, according to an analysis by POLITICO. That includes paid-for messages by Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister, Verein Recht und Freiheit (Association for the Conservation of the Rule of Law and Civil Liberties), a support group for right-wing politicians in Germany and Petra De Sutter, a Belgian candidate for the Green Party.

It seems that Facebook is aware, however, of accusations of censorship and bias. The company’s chief lobbyist in Europe told Politico that Facebook is avoiding taking too harsh a line on the content allowed on the platform:

“We recognize that some people think we should remove everything,” said Richard Allan, Facebook’s chief lobbyist in Europe, in reference to the reams of political content now flooding the digital platform. “But we have concerns of removing everything during a political election.”

“We don’t believe it’s the right place to be for us to be the regulator of political campaigns,” he added. Facebook may not want the role, but its global reach puts it at the heart of the democratic process from France to the Philippines.

 

Politico described the new Dublin team tasked with monitoring misinformation, writing:

The team, which includes speakers of all of the EU’s 24 official languages, is split along national boundaries, with specialists — primarily men who would not look out of place in any startup office — monitoring activity on both Facebook’s social media platforms and those of rivals, notably Google and Twitter.

Facebook would not say how much content the group reviews daily, though each Facebook staffer had multiple screens open monitoring news events and other political discussions online.

Once an issue is flagged, Facebook’s engineers can then work with their counterparts across Europe and elsewhere to determine if the activity infringes the company’s standards, and then delete, play down or leave the content on the network, depending on the outcome. Topics for review include possible misinformation, voter suppression and hate speech, and the company said that it had investigated hundreds of incidents within the last week.

“Even though we’re a tech company, speaking face to face is invaluable,” said Sturdy, the Facebook executive.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑