Activity

1. The original story was in The Times – a UK newspaper that for the most part is a Conservative Party mouthpiece. So the Conservative Party is perhaps taking a stance on Facebook?

2. The fake profile created: an IT professional in his 30s. Well this is interesting information. Is there some kind of intel that says people of this description are more likely to be watching jihadist content and child porn? Or is this just pushing an existing stereotype (limited social skill IT person is into child porn and jihadism)?

3. The fact that that fake profile person befriended jihadists? Gee, I didn’t know they were that easy to find and befriend…. but perhaps the Times had other information that “helped” them choose who to befriend. You know how they often say the “perpetrator was known to the police/security services”. Does The Times have such a list?

4. The conflation of the three different “memes”: (1) fake news/hate speech/dodgy content, (2) child pornography (which I note is give the rather mild name of Public Indecency in the U.K. justice system), (3) jihadism
Why link these together? Or is it just that they want as many people as possible to read the story and therefore include as many possible “hooks”?

5. Finally, the most obvious one perhaps: content that most people would see as problematic is not removed by Facebook when flagged….. yet there are many reports of Facebook militantly removing “politically incorrect” content. Evidence once again for the fact that Facebook drives a particular agenda: however, this time reported in the “mainstream” news.

6. Additionally, content moderation of troubling content is absent, prompting the question: Does Facebook WANT users to see child pornography and violent jihadist content? If so, to what purpose?

7. The underlying and implicit statement of the piece is that online content should be censored – to “protect us” of course. Given how implicit it is, perhaps that is the whole intent of the Times story: to once again reinforce the message that the Internet must be curtailed and “safely managed”.

As to point N. 6, various kinds of content especially “violence porn” can be seen on all media and as many authors have pointed out is part of a decades-old psyop. Just the other day I saw a trailer for the “spy” movie “Kingsman2” that is just a constant mowing down of “enemies”.

Instagram is rapidly descending into the same gutter, and who owns Instagram? Facebook of course!

You’re looking at the wrong people. Forget violent r@pe p0rn on woman and children, that’s part of the Tavistock plan for the degradence of western civilisation. It’s not facebook’s fault, they are a tool being used by a larger program.
However.. I would like to see the entire board of directors at Facebook gets charged with aiding and abetting the distribution of child pornography and actively supporting terrorism.