Category: Media

Posted on

Ottawa, Privy Council Lobbied By Facebook, Crestview Strategy, O’Toole

Facebook meeting with the Canadian Government over legislation which is set to influence digital media. Facebook claims that many of these meetings are solicited by the Government itself.

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; and Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
CLICK HERE, for Crestview Strategy’s mainpage.

CLICK HERE, for Facebook lobbyist, Erin O’Toole of HB firm.
https://archive.is/ennLd

CLICK HERE, for Kevin Chan’s LinkedIn page.
https://archive.is/Ngbtb
CLICK HERE, for Kevin Chan, Privy Council Office Holder.
https://archive.is/3Mwny

CLICK HERE, for Zakery Blais LinkedIn page.

3. Context For This Article

The lobbying firm, Crestview Strategy, is being covered once again. This time, it is because of Crestview’s lobbying efforts on behalf of Facebook. It’s time to show some of the secrets the public may not know about this.

It was addressed in Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 48 how Crestview Strategy was lobbying the Federal Government on behalf of GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance. However, Crestview has its fingers in many more pies than just the drug industry.

4. CPC Head Erin O’Toole Ex-Facebook Lobbyist

Less than a year after serving as a lobbyist for Facebook, O’Toole announced he was going to enter Federal politics.

5. Kevin Chan: Privy Council, OLO, Facebook

In the lobbying records, it is mandatory to disclose all senior officers who hold (or have held), public office. The registry lists Kevin Chan, who held several positions with the Privy Council. Interestingly, none of that appears on Chan’s LinkedIn profile.

Also, from 2009 until 2011, Chan worked for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. At that time, it was Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff is now a Vice-President at George Soros’ Open Society.

It’s worth pointing out the the Leader of the Official Opposition is now Erin O’Toole, who was also lobbyist for Facebook, when he worked for Heenan Blaikie.

6. Conflict Of Interest With Privy Council

As can be seen in the last section, Kevin Chan worked for the Privy Council’s Office for several years, before joining Facebook. He is now one of their senior officers.

Dominic LeBlanc is currently the President of the Privy Council. He has publicly suggested passing laws to combat “misinformation online”. In order to do this, LeBlanc would have to get social media outlets like Facebook onboard with that agenda.

It seems that Facebook Canada (using their in-house Council), has been lobbying the Canadian Government — and specifically the Privy Council — a lot in the last few years. But don’t worry, that won’t lead to a crack down on free speech or anything like that.

7. Zakery Blais Worked For AG David Lametti

His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.

Blais worked for a sitting MP, according to his Crestview Strategy profile, but does not identify the person. However, on his LinkedIn page, it is listed as David Lametti. Lametti was a Parliamentary Secretary at that time, but is now the sitting Attorney General of Canada.

On August 1st, Blais renewed his Crestview lobbying registration for the Gates financed GAVI. See here.

8. Jason Clark: Crestview, GAVI, Facebook

Jason holds a Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Western University, and a Master of Arts degree in International Studies and Diplomacy with a Specialization in Global Energy & Climate Change Policy from SOAS, University of London in London, United Kingdom. Jason serves on the Board of the Ottawa Bicycle Club and volunteered for several Ottawa-area Liberal Party of Canada candidates during the 2015 election campaign.

Crestview’s Jason Clark has been a lobbyist for both Facebook and GAVI. He also worked as an election volunteer for the Liberal Candidates in Ottawa for the 2015 election.

9. Chad Rogers: Crestview, GAVI, Facebook

Chad Rogers is a strategist, entrepreneur and founding partner at Crestview Strategy, a public affairs agency.
.
Chad helps leaders, companies and industry associations make their case and get things approved. He has been a public opinion researcher, senior advisor to a Premier, and has served as an advisor to political party and government leaders across the globe.

Rogers was a founding partner of Crestview Strategy (as was Rob Silver, who is Katie Telford’s husband). He has also been registered as a lobbyist for both Facebook and GAVI. Interesting, however, he won’t list the Premier, but a search on LinkedIn identifies it as the 1999-2003 Government — who was led by John Hamm.

10. Crestview Strategy & Facebook Lobbyists

Although they haven’t all filed formal communications reports, it seems that Facebook always has at least 1 or 2 lobbyists on staff, ready to go

11. Everyone Should Have A License

A proposal earlier this year to make all media outlets in Canada have a license. The Government backtracked a bit when there was a public backlash.

Of course, it must be asked: where did this idea come from? Was it some bureaucrat with the CRTC? Was it Facebook and Google? Was it some other group who wants to shut down free speech?

12. Big Tech Collusion On “Pandemic”

This was addressed in another article, but it seems that social media companies are fully on board with promoting the vaccine agenda, and stamping out “misinformation” of their platforms.

13. This Doesn’t Look Like Arms Length

There is little real separation here. Lobbyists are paid to influence politicians on a variety of issues, including media, free speech, taxation, and vaccines. As such, the interests of the public are given little, if any, real consideration.

One last point: this isn’t just a Liberal problem. Crestview Strategy, and similar groups, have ties to many political parties, including the Conservative Party of Canada.

Posted on

UN Global Internet Governance Forum, Meeting Since 2006

Getting your own politicians to protect free speech is difficult enough. How does it work when the rules are being drafted by unelected officials in other countries?

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter, big tech collusion in coronavirus, and Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal.

IF you think that Canadian laws don’t do enough to protect free speech in general, or online free speech more specifically, just wait until it is regulated globally.

2. IGF Meetings Held Since 2006

2006: Athens, Greece, https://archive.is/g2NnZ
2007: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, https://archive.is/uiFsE
2008: Hyderabad, India, https://archive.is/6rV0k
2009: Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, https://archive.is/dS2SO
2010: Vilnius, Lithuania, https://archive.is/uzC3U
2011: Nairobi, Kenya, https://archive.is/Dl71r
2012: Baku, Azerbaijan, https://archive.is/XUDaX
2013: Bali, Indonesia, https://archive.is/wksxQ
2014: Istanbul, Turkey, https://archive.is/XKnUe
2015: João Pessoa, Brazil, https://archive.is/1CiSE
2016: Jalisco, Mexico, https://archive.is/Rkazl
2017: Geneva, Switzerland, https://archive.is/mtw6w
2018: Paris, France, https://archive.is/zEsjK
2019: Berlin, Germany, https://archive.is/KGwzo

3. Important Issues Global IGF Discusses

What Key Issues are discussed at the IGF?
As an example, key issues discussed at the 12th meeting of the IGF in 2017 include:
.
– The impact of modern technologies on industry, society, and the economy;
– Multistakeholderism and Multilateralism and the setting of global norms;
– The new digital economy & sustainable development — providing opportunities or deepening divides?
– The role of government in policy making in the digital age;
– The emergence of a global, Internet society;
– Cybersecurity and cyber-threats;
– Artificial intelligence (AI);
– Critical Internet resources;
– Blockchains and bitcoins;
– Fake news;
– Access, inclusion and diversity;
– The pressing need for security in the Internet of Things;
– Digital divides;

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Advocates of strong free speech laws will notice (in particular) the topics of the role of government, and fake news. Makes one wonder if various Heads of State will decide what is real news and what is fake.

4. Who Funds Global IGF?

How is the global Internet Governance Forum funded?
.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat – based in Geneva, is sustained financially through the extra-budgetary Trust Fund Account managed by United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). The nature of the IGF Trust Fund is such that it is voluntary and multi-donor driven, with varying contributions from Governments and non-governmental organisations from the technical community, the private sector and the civil society. The IGF Trust Fund covers the administrative and operational costs of the IGF Secretariat including personnel, fellowships, and meeting costs (venues, interpretation, logistical costs, etc.); and funds the travel costs of MAG Members from developing countries. More details about the list of donors and funds received are available online. The Trust Fund also provides support to various intersessional activities, inter alia Best Practice Forums, major policy initiatives such as Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s), etc.

Each year, the organizational and conference cost of the annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum is provided for by the Government of the host country, administered through a Host Country Agreement signed between the Government and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Donors to the Trust Fund (highest to lowest)

  • Government of Finland
  • Government of Germany
  • European Commission
  • Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
  • The Internet Society (ISOC)
  • Number Resource Organization (NRO)
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • Government of Switzerland
  • Government of the United States
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • Government of Japan
  • Nominet UK
  • Tides Foundation
  • Verizon
  • IGFSA
  • Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
  • AT&T
  • China Energy Fund Committee
  • Verisign
  • Afilias Global Registry Services
  • Facebook
  • Government of Portugal – Fundacao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Siemens Aktiengesellschaft – Communications / Nokia Siemens Networks
  • Google
  • Government of Norway
  • Government of Sweden
  • Amazon
  • UNINETT Norid
  • The Swiss Education & Research Network (SWITCH)
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • European Registry for Internet domains
  • CISCO
  • auDA Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
  • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) – Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)
  • Coordination Center for TLD
  • Danish Internet Forum
  • Politecnico di Torino
  • Community DNS
  • Government of the Republic of Korea
  • European Telecommunication Network Operators’ Association
  • MCADE, LLC
  • NIC-MEXICO
  • Nic.at The Austrian Registry
  • Summit Strategies International
  • NIKKEI DigitalCORE
  • Ribose Inc.

In addition to the funding of various governments, the following names should be familiar to almost everyone: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Disney, Amazon, AT&T, Verizon, and the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

5. IGF And UNSG Panel On Digital Cooperation

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends and colleagues. We’re having this conversation under unusual circumstances at a pivotal moment in history.

In a world already fundamentally transformed by digital technologies, the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for social distancing have propelled the adoption of information and communications technologies and transformed the bedrock of humanity’s means of survival and prosperity: communication. To cooperate, we must communicate, and to communicate nowadays, we must use digital means. This is an important time for Internet governance.

COVID-19 has raised the stakes for global digital cooperation. Over the last few months, my office, in partnership with the international telecommunications unit, organized a series of webinars on digital cooperation in times of COVID-19 and beyond. These discussions considered challenges when urgent cooperation is required, such as with regard to the ongoing deficit in connectivity, with regard to human rights challenges and trust and security issues.

.
Health systems today don’t just have to treat the sick. They also have to deal with cyber attacks and the spread of dangerous, life-threatening misinformation.

In follow-up to the Secretary-General’s call for a global cease far, I also called for a digital cease fire. Global cooperation is necessary if we wish to overcome the pandemic without drastically compromising values like privacy and freedom of speech.

A few days ago, the Secretary-General presented his roadmap for digital cooperation which sets forth his vision for how the international community should engage on these and other key digital issues outlined in the report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The roadmap describes a range of actions for all stakeholders from the United Nations system to member states, the private sector, civil society organizations, and the technical community. The United Nations, including the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, can truly serve as a platform for informed discussion and evidence-based decisions and practices.

The High-level Panel had noted, and I quote, “a great deal of dissatisfaction with existing digital cooperation arrangements, a desire for more tangible outcomes, more active and diverse participation by governments and the private sector, and more inclusive processes and better follow-up,” end of quote.

The IGF should be retooled to become more responsive and relevant to current digital issues. We must ensure that the IGF is a forum that governments value and want to attend while preserving the important space it represents for other stakeholder engagement.

The IGF’s coordinating and strategic role needs to be further strengthened. The roadmap includes a series of suggestions to further enhance the IGF, such as by improving fundraising, inclusion, and outcomes. I hope you will all be engaged in the follow-up of the action areas highlighted in the Secretary-General’s roadmap, and I hope you will all share your views specifically on how the IGF can be made even more responsive to the evolving challenges of digital cooperation.

Thank you for your engagement and support of the IGF and digital cooperation. We welcome and we need your ideas, your proposals, and your continued enthusiasm and support.
Thank you.

Don’t worry. It’s not like this will lead to a global body deciding what can or can’t be talked about or shared on the internet. This will absolutely never be abused.

6. Global Digital Cooperation Frameworks

The Global Internet Governance Forum goes on to propose several different ways that “digital cooperation” could be implemented on a world-wide scale. But don’t worry. It’s all just discussion, and nothing that gets suggested will ever become legally binding.

7. Canadian Internet Governance Forum

Save the date: The virtual Canadian IGF will be Nov. 24 and Nov. 25, 2020.
The Canadian Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is Canada’s leading multi-stakeholder forum on digital and internet policy issues.
.
The inaugural event took place last year in Toronto and brought together over 200 representatives from government, civil society, and the private sector to tackle pressing public policy issues facing the internet.
.
The Canadian IGF is a national initiative of the global United-Nations-convened Internet Governance Forum, which holds annual meetings at different locations around the world. The Canadian IGF will produce a report detailing the unique, regional priorities facing Canadian stakeholders in attendance. This report will then be fed into the global IGF.

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

This isn’t just some abstract UN group far off. There exists a Canadian branch of the Internet Governance Forum, and its agenda is pretty much what one would expect.

Throughout the discussions, several common themes emerged across subject areas. These
included trends towards increased regulation; the necessity for plain language content; and,
the need for education and digital literacy. For stakeholders engaging in Internet governance
domestically and abroad, priorities going forward include the need for:
• A transnational, multistakeholder approach to internet governance.
• Awareness of/education on the issues, and how users can participate in discussions
related to internet governance.
• Solutions developed by any stakeholder group that are thoughtful, evidence-based, and
proportionate.
• Transparency from both governments and businesses in order to promote public trust
and build the capacity of users.

These priorities are elaborated in the conclusion of this report.

That is from page 5 on the report. They explicitly state that they view internet regulation as a global concept.

Key Issues
• Fake news and misinformation.
• Hateful online speech.
• Global and domestic threats.
• Data security

Discussion Overview
The panel’s discussion surrounded three main topics: 1) While foreign actors are a threat, domestic actors are an equal or higher risk when it comes to the dissemination of fake news and the proliferation of hateful speech online. Social media platforms also have to balance discouraging fake news, while ensuring they are not censoring a legitimate group; 2) Political actors are increasingly using social media platforms as a tool to get messages out; and 3) In the aftermath of Cambridge Analytica, academics have seen social media platforms reduce their access to datasets to study the fake news problem.

A recent report on Canadians’ use of social media shows that 94% of internet users here in this country have at least one social media account. The exposure to potential misinformation and disinformation campaigns is enormous.

Both technological and policy-based solutions are needed to confront the fake news problem. Facebook, for instance, has a three-pronged strategy focusing on people, technology and, increasingly, partnerships. Facebook has gone from 10,000 to 30,000 people dedicated to working on this challenge. In Q2 and Q3 of last year, Facebook removed approximately 1.5 billion fake accounts. The development of digital literacy skills is required to help users discern between real and fake news. The need for civility among users was also stressed. Canada must decide on its approach to fake news and newer technology, generally. Do we want to follow the lead of the United States or Europe?

A void has been created in the news world because traditional journalism is fading quickly. Social media platforms have become a new distribution channel for news. Panelists disagreed on whether the problem can be solved through technology or if it is more deeply rooted in human causes for which technology has no response

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

From pages 18/19 in the report: it seems that outlets like Facebook have taken it upon themselves to determine what accounts are fake, and what counts as fake news.

The authors of this report, (and of IGF more broadly), keep referring to “international stakeholders”. It seems to imply that other parties should have some say over free speech on the internet, instead of Canadians themselves.

8. Canada Gov’t Bought Off Media (2018)

It’s interesting that the report talks about the decline of traditional media (which is true), but omits the tax-payer funded bailout that the Canadian Government gave. In effect, old-stock media in Canada is now subsidized even more so. Even without the IGF, the media is already pretty corrupt.

9. UNESCO Campaign Against Mis-Information

This was covered a few months ago, but UNESCO has been embarking on a serious campaign against what it calls “misinformation”. UNESCO reminds people to only trust official sources for information on coronavirus.

10. UN Wants Internet Ruled By International Law

Tremendous progress has been made internationally in accepting that international law and the UN Charter apply in cyberspace. He urged the private sector to be involved in countering the number of malevolent tools being deployed in cyberspace, especially in developing more secure software.

Combating Fake News and Dangerous Content in the Digital Age
.
The consensus from the session on Fake News was that part of the complexity to tackle disinformation was the challenge to define it. From election interference to stoking up hate or increase religious hatred, there are also other multilayered levels such as spam, and misleading types of content like opinion pieces masking as objective journalism.

Irene Poetrant, Senior Researcher for Citizen Lab of University of Toronto agreed, saying definitions matter and in order to maintain an open and democratic system, it is important for government, private sector, civil society and institutions to work together, and that fake news is not just a problem of the west but a global problem.

“Misinformation is the antithesis of Google’s mission”, said Jake Lucchi, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact. Partnering with journalists, governments, and third parties, they try to find product solutions to identify misinformation and find ways to surface authoritative content. “Young people need to have critical thinking and skills to be able to navigate the internet and check our sources.” Improved algorithms and having policies in place to prohibit hate speech are also key – providers have to ensure misinformation are not allowed on their platforms.

That page is from the November 2018 meeting is Paris. While it sounds benevolent on the surface, who exactly will be the arbitrator of what is “fake news”? Remember, UNESCO (as an example), repeatedly says that only official sources can be trusted. This comes in spite of a wealth of information that CONTRADICTS those narratives. This raises the question of can valid media be shut down if factual reporting is tagged as “misinformation”?

11. Digital Charter Long In The Making

Think that the “Digital Charter” was an idea suddenly concocted? It wasn’t. The UN Digital Cooperation Panel was launched in the Summer of 2018. When the New Zealand shooting happened in March 2019, the stage had already been set.

In a similar vein, the mass shooting in Nova Scotia appears to be a pretext for the Federal Government imposing a mass gun grab.

12. Calls To Expand Digital Cooperation

11 June 2020 – New York
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres presented today a set of recommended actions for the international community to help ensure all people are connected, respected, and protected in the digital age. The Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation is the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder, global effort to address a range of issues related to the Internet, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies.

The Roadmap for Digital Cooperation comes at a critical inflection point for digital issues, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating digitization and magnifying both opportunities and challenges of digital technology.

digital.cooperation.roadmap.expand

But don’t worry. These resolutions and agreements won’t ever become legally binding, or anything like that. These are just ideas being thrown around.

Posted on

More On Vaccine Hesitancy Research, Convincing People It’s Safe

Go onto Health Canada’s site and search the term “vaccine hesitancy”. You will find over 200 papers, studies, and listings — some very in depth work. Keep in mind, this is ONLY Health Canada. See #6 for mandatory CV-19 vaccines.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. Motivational Interviewing

Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy is among the top threats to global health and few effective strategies address this growing problem. In Canada, approximatively 20% of parents/caregivers are concerned about their children receiving vaccines. Trying to convince them by simply providing the facts about vaccination may backfire and make parents/caregivers even more hesitant. In this context, how can health care providers overcome the challenge of parental decision-making needs regarding vaccination of their children?

Motivational interviewing aims to support decision making by eliciting and strengthening a person’s motivation to change their behaviour based on their own arguments for change. This approach is based on three main components: the spirit to cultivate a culture of partnership and compassion; the processes to foster engagement in the relationship and focus the discussion on the target of change; and the skills that enable health care providers to understand and address the parent/caregiver’s real concerns.

With regard to immunization, the motivational interviewing approach aims to inform parents/caregivers about vaccinations, according to their specific needs and their individual level of knowledge, with respectful acceptance of their beliefs. The use of motivational interviewing calls for a respectful and empathetic discussion of vaccination and helps to build a strong relationship.

Numerous studies in Canada, including multicentre randomized controlled trials, have proven the effectiveness of the motivational interviewing approach. Since 2018, the PromoVac strategy, an educational intervention based on the motivational interviewing approach, has been implemented as a new practice of care in maternity wards across the province of Quebec through the Entretien Motivationnel en Maternité pour l’Immunisation des Enfants (EMMIE) program.

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing

To be absolutely clear, the above research, and what follows has nothing to do with research into CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, the goal is to CONVINCE you that they already are.

3. Challenges And Approaches

Because causes of vaccine hesitancy and determinants of vaccine acceptance are complex and multidimensional, there is no “magic bullet” that can address vaccine hesitancy and enhance vaccine acceptance. A summary of the findings from 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis of the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance reveals that simply communicating evidence about vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy related beliefs and fears (41). Furthermore, failure to properly and systematically evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of these interventions across the spectrum of vaccine hesitant individuals and specific vaccines makes it difficult to know whether the results can be transferable or suitable for widespread implementation.

Should the public health community respond to anti-vaccination activists (48)? Leask suggests that adversarial approaches against such activists can in fact enliven the battle and contribute to a false sense that vaccination is a highly contested topic (49). Most of the time, pro-vaccine advocates should “play the issue, not the opponent” (49). Efforts should be made to stop them only when anti-vaccination activists’ advice could lead to direct harm.

Future public health vaccine promotion efforts need to embrace Internet and social media possibilities and proactively promote the importance and safety of vaccines rather than adopt a reactive approach to anti-vaccination activists’ arguments (47,50,51). The role of social media in vaccine hesitancy creates a need to develop appropriate strategies for online communication. Such strategies should aim to provide vaccine supportive information, address misinformation published online and correspond to parents’ needs and interests (29).

vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches

In a parallel with the climate change scam, a technique suggested is to be dismissive of the idea that there is any debate. If you can’t win with facts, then avoid the discussion altogether.

It’s interesting that the recommendation is to avoid engaging with people “vaccine deniers” who bring well researched and well thought out arguments.

4.Best Practices For Addressing Hesitancy

1. Identify target audience and establish trust
“Understanding the perspectives of the people for whom immunization services are intended, and their engagement with the issue”, wrote Goldstein and colleagues, “is as important as the information that experts want to communicate” (8). The amount, content and type of information that is needed to move a vaccine-hesitant individual toward vaccine acceptance differs greatly from the basic information needed by a person who is already favourable to vaccination and intends to vaccinate. Research has shown that vaccine-hesitant individuals are “active information-seekers” that are looking for “balanced” information presenting both pros and cons of vaccination in order to make an informed decision about vaccines (9,10). Their information needs are usually not fulfilled with typical information from public health authorities, as this information generally does not usually provide references to scientific studies and is often perceived as focusing on the benefits of vaccines and not discussing the potential risks of vaccines (11). Addressing those who are strongly anti-vaccines merit specific strategies. This is not the subject of the current paper but will be addressed in a future CANVax Brief.

5. Test communication prior to launching
It is important to test a communication material prior to launching to make sure it is working as intended for the target audience. The results might be surprising: a study showed that information given in frequency formats (e.g. one out of 10 infants will have a fever after a vaccination) were perceived as more risky than the same information conveyed in probabilistic terms (e.g. 10% of infants will have a fever after a vaccination) (27). Studies have also shown that as many as one out of two adults do not have the necessary skills to interpret probabilities and other mathematical concepts

vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material

This works just like commercial marketing. Target your audience, and avoid getting into “factual” arguments with people who have actually done their homework.

5. Progress Against Vaccine Hesitancy

Fortunately, researchers like Dr. Ève Dubé, with Université Laval are looking into this important issue. Dr. Dubé is an anthropologist, a researcher, and a professor, who works on vaccine hesitancy. Her research aims at understanding the social, cultural, and political contexts that influence individuals’ and groups’ beliefs and practices around vaccination.

She works with various health organizations to transfer research into practice.

One of the aims of her research program is to address vaccine hesitancy by supporting parents to make informed vaccination decisions and by ensuring that healthcare providers are prepared to communicate effectively with vaccine-hesitant parents.

She is currently leading different projects on vaccine hesitancy such as a study based on interviews with vaccine-hesitant parents to look at information sources on vaccination and information needs and preferences of parents to make an informed decision about vaccination. She is also leading a project to develop and pilot-test interventions to address vaccine hesitancy around the HPV vaccine in the context of school-based programs in Canada.

Vaccine hesitancy is a very, VERY widely researched field. A lot of money is tied up in ensuring that people don’t start asking the wrong questions and putting the pieces together.

Ève Dubé also co-authors the next piece, which includes entertaining the idea of making this coronavirus vaccine mandatory.

6. Legislating Vaccine Compliance

Given that queries have also been raised in the press about whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine(s), when available, should be made mandatory for some or all in Canada, this Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Brief provides an overview and brief discussion of what mandatory childhood vaccination means followed by discussions of scope and framework factors to consider. Also discussed are the reported outcomes, including reports of unintended consequences.

COVID-19 vaccines and consideration for a mandatory approach
While a poll in Canada in late April 2020 reported strong support amongst the general public for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory (21), this strategy can only be considered when these vaccines become widely available in Canada. Given that a mandatory program has costs both in terms of implementation and monitoring (5), decisions need to rest on what additional benefit is hoped to be achieved. If vaccine uptake is already expected to be high amongst groups deemed necessary for the control of the spread of COVID-19, then the added costs of a mandatory program are likely not justified. In contrast, if the rates of uptake are low and the ease of access and other strategies known to improve uptake have been addressed, then a mandatory approach may be worth pursuing. Careful attention must be paid to whether this will be an incentive or penalty program, how it will be monitored and by whom (5).

vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

At least some honesty here. It is acknowledged in writing that the public is wondering if CV-19 vaccines will ever become mandatory. Interestingly, it doesn’t address that concern. Instead, it just defers the issue until later.

7. How Rampant Is This Research?

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing
vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches
vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material
vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

These are only a few of course. Much more available here.

8. Immunization Partnership Fund

This was addressed in Part 8, but worth another look.

9. Gates Finances Vaccine Hesitancy Research

Although small by its standards, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has made some contributions to vaccine hesitancy work. It’s just good business.

10. WHO Researches Vaccine Hesitancy

A search on the World Health Organization’s site under “vaccine hesitancy” results in 117 possible matches.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

11. WHO Establishes National Standards


WHO.establishment.national.standards.vaccines

This is a 2011 publication, but the World Health Organization sets national standards for what vaccinations countries need apparently.

12. WHO’s July 9, 2020 Guidance

How to prevent transmission
The overarching aim of the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan for COVID-19(1) is to control COVID-19 by suppressing transmission of the virus and preventing associated illness and death. To the best of our understanding, the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets. Under some circumstances airborne transmission may occur (such as when aerosol generating procedures are conducted in health care settings or potentially, in indoor crowded poorly ventilated settings elsewhere). More studies are urgently needed to investigate such instances and assess their actual significance for transmission of COVID-19.

WHO.july9.new.science.supposedly.uncovered

In this latest version, the World Health Organization has removed earlier comments about there being no evidence to support wearing masks. Now, the deadliest virus in history can be stopped by a simple piece of cloth.

13. WHO: May 22 Guidance On Mass Vaccination

who.mass.vaccination.strategy

Note: the World Health Organization doesn’t have an issue with mass vaccination of an entire population during this “pandemic”. They just want people to be safe, apparently.

14. “Vaccine Hesitancy” Is Just Marketing

They refer to it as overcoming vaccine hesitancy. However these are marketing techniques to convince people that these vaccines are safe, and only crazies are questioning it.

Some of the techniques include pretending to care about people’s concerns, and feigning a legitimate relationship. Also, strong critics should be treated dismissively, and questions evaded. It should not be even entertained that there might be serious questions about these drugs.

There is a strong parallel with the climate change hoax. Both use psychological manipulation to ward off valid questions about what is going on.

This is just a small sample of the work deployed to convince people that these are safe. There is much more to look into.

Posted on

Canada’s Open Borders Encourage Human Smuggling/Trafficking

Human trafficking, smuggling, and child exploitation are directly connected to the open borders policies that Western Governments have supported for years.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Check the link for more information on the TSCE series. Also, more information on Canada’s borders is available here, here, here, here, and here. Open borders, sanctuary cities, and human smuggling/trafficking are directly linked. The first 2 help enable the other 2.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for previous CBSA rules, air departure loophole.
CLICK HERE, for current CBSA exit system for air departures.
http://archive.is/v25lM
CLICK HERE, for 2016 proposal to have entry/exit system.
CLICK HERE, for UNODC on the smuggling/open borders connection.
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review
CLICK HERE, for Canada ending “Safe Country” designations.
http://archive.is/dShJ9
CLICK HERE, for UNHCR partnership list.
CLICK HERE, for full text of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s policy on DNA testing migrants.
CLICK HERE, for Canada checking ancestry sites, DNA tests.
http://archive.is/mD5JB
https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/refugee.dna_.testing.unchr_.1.pdf
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75: terrorism/child crimes.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent.

3. Conservatives Act As Controlled Opposition

To make this clear: so-called “conservatives” are fully complicit in efforts to erase the Canadian border, and to allow people to come en masse. While they SAY a lot of the right things, their actions speak very differently. Conservatives cannot be trusted on issues such as border security or immigration.

4. Entry/Exit System Finally Implemented

Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.
.
Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.
.
Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

Simply put, travel to countries other than the U.S. are not logged by the Canada Border Services Agency. That site has been altered, and now contains the following information.

Effective June 25, 2020, the CBSA requires air carriers to submit manifests, including those carriers that previously tested and were certified for the Air Exit Program prior to 2020. To begin onboarding, the CBSA encourages all air carriers to contact us as soon as possible.

In the previous system, there was a major loophole in the exit system. Exits were only tracked of people going to the United States (by air, sea, or land crossings). Since June 25, however, all air travel out of the country is logged by the CBSA, closing a very large loophole.

This is good news to see this implemented. However, CBSA confirmed that they don’t actually do anything with the information unless they are looking for specific people.

Interestingly, it is the Trudeau Government that implemented this change. The previous Harper Government was in power for 10 years but chose not to do anything about it. Sure, it took 4 years to come into effect.

5. Smuggling/Trafficking & Open Borders Link


Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.

6. (Foreign) NGOs Trying To Open Borders

Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.

Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.

By its own admission, the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR) partners with more than 900 NGOs and civil society groups.

7. (Foreign) NGOs Wage Lawfare In Court

This was discussed in other articles, but there have been at least 3 major attempts in Federal Court to strike down the concept of a “safe country”, and make it easier for people identifying as refugees to come to Canada. See this page for a summary. Groups like Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Council of Churches are not entirely Canadian, despite what names they may go by.

8. Abolishing The “Safe Country” Concept

On May 17, 2019, Canada removed the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) practice. That meant some 42 countries — mostly in Europe — which were considered safe countries were not anymore. The only remaining one was the United States, as covered by the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

9. UNHCR Was Always A Party To S3CA

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Something few people know is that the UNHCR is actually a party to the Safe 3rd Country Agreement. It is not just an agreement between the U.S. and Canada, but includes the UN in a consulting role.

10. Federal Court Erasing S3CA Altogether

Thanks to a recent decision by the Federal Court of Canada, the Safe Third Country Agreement has been struck down entirely. This means that anyone “identifying” as a refugee can now come to Canada from the United States.

Canada does have the option to appeal, and this ruling gives 6 months to draft new legislation. However, with this government, it seems unlikely either will happen.

11. Opening The Floodgates LEGALLY

No, bringing people into Canada in large numbers doesn’t have to be in a sneaky way. Keep in mind, all parties support genocidal levels of replacement migration, and support various globalist initiatives. Conservatives are just as bad, however many people are duped into thinking otherwise.

12. Erasing Borders: CANZUK/UN GMC


(Andrew Scheer finally speaks on the 2018 UN Global Migration Compact. He feigns being indignant, and pretends that borders are something conservatives actually care about. He would come across as believable, if he showed any consistency.)

Conservatives offer nothing except the illusion of opposing. In this example: Andrew Scheer claims to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact (after initially remaining silent). However, CANZUK — an open borders treaty that can be expanded — is official party policy. Some real mental gymnastics are at play here. Furthermore, Erin O’Toole explicitly states at 2:00 in the CANZUK video that he wants to expand CANZUK to other countries.

There is bipartisan support for open borders. But, do politicians at least enact measures to ensure that people, especially children, are not subject to exploitation? Not exactly.

13. Reluctance For DNA Testing: Child/Parent

When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship (where it has been claimed) or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.

Canada only does DNA testing of alleged family members when it cannot establish otherwise that there is a relationship. This has been public for years now, but is still rare. Considering the amount of fraud that has been documented elsewhere, logic dictates that this should be the norm, in order to protect children from being trafficked. Even the UNHCR frowns on the practice of DNA testing, calling on it to be a last resort. The UNCHR also advises not to deny applications simply because of the DNA may not match. See this post for more background information.

14. Weakening Child Sex-Crime Penalties

Because of Bill C-75, criminal prosecutors now have discretion to try the following offences summarily (lesser) as opposed to mandatory indictment (more severe). Check out the list:

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex (reduced)
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

One of Trudeau’s big bills (Bill C-75) in his first term was to reduce the criminal penalties for many sex crimes against children, and for terrorism offences.

15. Lowering The Age Of Consent For Anal

One of Trudeau’s earlier pieces of legislation was Bill C-32. However, the contents were eventually shoved into Bill C-75. This would have reduced the age of consent for anal sex form 18 to 16. If Trudeau was interested in “equality”, perhaps a better solution all around would be raising the overall age to 18.

16. Controlled Opposition “Tough On Crime”

Remember Stephen Harper, who was supposedly “tough on crime”? His idea of being hard on child sex offenders was raising the minimum sentence (for indictable offences), from 3 months to 1 year. That’s still pretty lenient, at least in most people’s eyes.

17. Courts Strike Mandatory Minimum Sentences

If it isn’t politically helpful to reduce the penalties, there is another option: have judges strike down existing penalties as “cruel and unusual”. Have a judge find some reasoning to make it work.

There are plenty of examples of this sort of this in action.

18. Sanctuary Cities Help “Disappear” People

toronto.human.trafficking.prevention

(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.

(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.

Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.

The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.

19. Child Exploitation As “Multiculturalism”

Along with racial and cultural differences, multiculturalism brings other serious problems. One of them is having to accept sketchy practices like child marriages, and grooming gangs as “being tolerant”. When there are no standards, then anything goes.

20. These Things Are Connected

There is a relationship between border security and trafficking or exploitation of people. The open borders policies of Western nations have the dual effect of allowing anyone to cross international lines, and of bringing incompatible ideologies with them. These are not random events, but a coordinated effort to overrun and replace our nations. This is a bipartisan effort — and no one is blameless in politics.

To borrow the famous quote: tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.

Posted on

CV #46: Dominic LeBlanc Proposes Law To Ban “Misinformation” About Virus

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For other articles in the coronavirus series, check here. There is an awful lot that you are not being told my the mainstream media, including the lies, lobbying, money changing hands, and one world agenda. Nothing is what it appears to be. Also, check out related topics, such as the media, and free speech.

2. Recent Proposal To Require Licensing

Keep in mind, if was only back in February that the Federal Government had proposed making it mandatory for media personalities to be licensed. Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault admits that the panel proposing it was formed in 2018 by the Liberals.

So the Liberals are no stranger to attacking free speech. In fairness though, the groups pushing for media licensing may be different than those pushing to ban research into coronavirus.

3. Quotes From CBC Article

The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people, says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.

LeBlanc told CBC News he is interested in British MP Damian Collins’s call for laws to punish those responsible for spreading dangerous misinformation online about the COVID-19 pandemic.

LeBlanc said he has discussed the matter already with other cabinet ministers, including Justice Minister David Lametti. If the government decides to follow through, he said, it could take a while to draft legislation.

“Legislatures and Parliaments are meeting scarcely because of the current context of the pandemic, so it’s not a quick solution, but it’s certainly something that we would be open [to] as a government,” said LeBlanc.

NDP MP Charlie Angus said he would support legislation to fight online misinformation.

Yes, this came out in April, but is worth revisiting. The Canadian Government is seriously open to the idea of cracking down on what it calls “misinformation” harmful to the public. Also disturbing is an NDP MP who is open to joining the Liberals in this. This is after calls in the UK for similar laws.

More recently, said Collins, the misinformation has shifted to conspiracy theories about what triggered the pandemic — claims that it was cooked up in a lab, for example. A conspiracy theory claiming the disease is caused by 5G wireless signals prompted attacks on wireless towers in the U.K.

The British government has set up a rapid response team to correct false information circulating online. Collins has launched a fact-checking site called Infotagion, along with Angus and Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith, among others.

No this is not just a Canadian problem. It’s a problem for people (globally) who want to expose and write about what is really happening.

4. LeBlanc & Microsoft President Smith

There’s been an online surge in disinformation and misinformation linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in recent weeks, along with cyber attacks on hospitals, says the head of one of the world’s tech giants.

Speaking at an event with Canadian Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc this morning, Microsoft president Brad Smith said his company has seen a recent shift in the pattern of online attacks and efforts to spread false rumours and lies about the pandemic.

Microsoft President met with Dominic LeBlanc in May to talk about the wave of misinformation that was all over the internet. Never mind the obvious fact that Microsoft was headed by Bill gates until very recently, who is pushing the vaccine agenda.

5. Social Media Collusion Already Exists

If we are going to have a law to ban “misinformation”, why don’t we start here? Social media companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook already work to promote the vaccine agenda. They already work together to dismiss critics. Wouldn’t that be a textbook case of what should be included in this proposed ban?

6. So What Exactly Is “Misinformation”?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam works for the World Health Organization?

Or how about that Deputy Prime Minister Chystia Freeland also is on the Board of Trustees for the World Economic Forum? And to mention Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of Canada, is as well? Is it “misinformation” to point out that the WEF was behind getting CV declared a pandemic, and now pushes the GREAT RESET?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that on August 4, Theresa Tam parroted the World Health Organization’s line about a vaccine not being a silver bullet?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry here, here, here, and here?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vast research done into vaccine hesitancy? This is research into psychological manipulation to convince people that vaccines are safe. Not research into MAKING safe vaccines, but research into CONVINCING you that they already are. See here and here.

Is it “misinformation” to point out M-132 was launched PRIOR to this pandemic, to finance drugs, and drug research for the entire world?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major and regular contributor to Imperial College London, who does the CV modelling?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vaccine bonds industry we send money to offers nothing of substance in return?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Provinces’ own data show the overwhelming majority of people recover on their own, with no vaccine?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the BC Provincial Health Officer repeatedly admits there is no science behind limiting group sizes, but does it anyway?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe, admitted that 50% of tests give false positives?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the World Health Organization doesn’t actually say to stay 2 metres apart?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lying and exaggerating by public officials of the virus death tolls?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that social media companies openly collude with governments in order to push the pro-vaccine agenda?

7. Still Just A Proposal (For Now)

While it seems to still just be an idea for consideration, it’s a chilling one. Such a law would effectively give the government the right to silence anyone who criticizes its agenda, REGARDLESS of how accurate or factual it may be.

On a personal note: could this site be shut down under the guise of “promoting misinformation”? Could all of this work cease to exist?

Posted on

Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech

https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1198973132385738752
http://archive.is/yBp2k
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1198993450668048385
http://archive.is/A7WVH

1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning


https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1288854760829980674

In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call

https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1154304423344136192
http://archive.is/NT9zz
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1176238961947291649

In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
.
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress