Facebook censors post against Trump’s Venezuela coup


This 2 February 2019 video from the USA is called Twitter Censors 2,000 Venezuelan Accounts.

From the site The Red Phoenix in the USA on February 3, 2019:

The Article Facebook Doesn’t Want You to Share: Venezuela Is Not Alone

The following article from the Cuban newspaper Granma is being censored by Facebook, and is not shareable on the platform with the original link. We present it here.

National March on Washington, Saturday, March 16: HANDS OFF VENEZUELA.

Advertisements

Facebook censorship of European elections


This 8 September 2016 video from the USA says about itself:

PBS and Facebook Censor [2016 Green party presidential candidate] Jill Stein‘s Criticism of Hillary Clinton

YouTuber Matt Orfalea discovered that PBS had censored parts of an interview with Jill Stein where she criticizes Hillary Clinton. Matt then uploaded the video exposing said censorship to Facebook, and they later took down the video, alleging it did not comply with their community’s guidelines.

Matt Discusses Facebook’s Censorship: here.

Watch the Full Video on PBS’ Censorship:

By Robert Stevens:

Facebook’s censor Nick Clegg outlines plans for European elections

2 February 2019

Just two months after joining Facebook as its vice-president of Global Affairs and Communications, Nick Clegg gave his first main speech this week outlining sweeping censorship measures to be imposed during the European elections. These are to be carried out in the name of combatting “disinformation” and “fake news”.

Clegg is the British former leader of the Liberal Democrats, who stood down as leader after the 2015 general election. The former deputy prime minister lost his parliamentary seat in the 2017 election, after taking part in a coalition government with the Conservatives between 2010 and 2015. Busy enriching himself in the corporate world, he receives a reported £4 million per year from the social media giant.

The speech Clegg gave in Brussels confirms why he was hired.

Facebook is still a young company and had “undoubtedly made mistakes and is now entering a new phase of reform, responsibility and change”, said Clegg. Central to this was dealing with “a subject that I imagine is uppermost in your minds … the integrity of elections and specifically Facebook’s plans for the European Parliament elections this coming May.”

Facebook had introduced “important new checks and controls”. Starting “with the US mid-terms last November, we established unprecedented new transparency measures for political advertising.” Facebook “would be deploying similar efforts to help protect the integrity of EU elections …”

To this end, Facebook would set up an “operations centre focused on elections integrity, based in Dublin, this spring.”

The company will play a major role in determining what voices Europe’s population are allowed to hear. In “late March, we will launch new tools to help prevent interference in the upcoming elections and to make political advertising on Facebook more transparent. We will require those wanting to run political and issue ads to be authorised and we will display a paid for by disclaimer on those ads.” The ads would be held in a database for up to seven years.

“This approach will help boost our rapid response efforts to fight misinformation, bringing together dozens of experts from across the company—including from our threat intelligence, data science, engineering, research, community operations and legal teams.”

Facebook’s monitoring will involve “clever engineers that we are going to ship over in an aeroplane later this this year to Brussels.” It would work closely with the highest echelons of the state, including “lawmakers, election commissions, other tech companies, academics and civil society groups to continue the fight against fake news, prevent the spread of voter suppression efforts and further integrate the large number of teams working on these important issues across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.”

In the “last decade when Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were founded … Attitudes to the internet and social media were in their infancy and they were largely uncritical attitudes. People were fascinated with the novel experience of connecting to friends, family and likeminded strangers online.”

Now everyone had to recognise, “Freedom must come with responsibility. We are at the start of a discussion that is no longer about whether social media should be regulated but how it should be regulated … and we are committed to working with policymakers to get it right.”

In the Q&A period, moderator Ryan Heath, the political editor at Politico Europe, asked how Facebook would work with the intelligence agencies in the EU in censoring content: “And intelligence and security services? Is there some kind of hotline when they identify some new group that is going to be explosive, or violent or dangerous? Can they get on the phone to you and shut it down?”

Clegg replied, “Yes.” He boasted of the “huge volume of material that is removed by Facebook every day because it contravenes the community standards on hate, violence, division and so on and the stuff that is coming down … on Russia related pages and so on, the million fake accounts that we take down before they are even registered every day. You could say we are hardening the parameters in which acceptable content is deemed to be legitimate.”

To underscore the extent of ongoing censorship, Clegg added that the “debate today that is understandably a lot about ‘why do platforms like Facebook leave X, Y, Z up on the platform,’ might very easily topple to … people saying, ‘Why are you taking so much down because a huge amount is coming down.’”

He gave an indication of the staggering resources Facebook is dedicating to actively monitoring and censoring content. It had worked to bolster its content review team, with “more than 30,000 people working around the world on security and safety.” Half of these, “15,000 of whom are dedicated to reviewing and removing content which breaches our community standards.” The “reviewers … deal with millions of comments, videos and comments every day.” There were “huge, huge volumes of content involved, an incredible hundred billion messages are now exchanged on Facebook services every single day.”

Clegg’s acknowledgement that the company is working closely with politicians in framing its censorship, dovetails with the EU’s recently announced plans to step up internet censorship to tackle “disinformation” they claim may affect the outcome of the European elections.

Last October, just weeks before Clegg’s appointment, the EU held a summit at which it announced that censorship of social media would be tightened up in advance of the elections. The European Council said this would include “measures to combat cyber and cyber-enabled illegal and malicious activities and build strong cybersecurity.”

Such measures were required against hacking attacks by Moscow, claimed the EU. In December, European Commission (EC) Vice President Andrus Ansip commented, “There is strong evidence pointing to Russia as a primary source of disinformation in Europe. Disinformation is part of Russia’s military doctrine and part of a strategy to divide and weaken the West.”

The EC wanted to see “Facebook and Google agree to step up efforts to remove misleading or illegal content.” Reuters reported that the EC proposed more resources to “monitor and flag Russian misinformation, raising the budget of the EU’s foreign service EEAS [European External Action Service] for this to €5 million ($5.7 million) from 1.9 million in 2018.”

While welcoming Clegg’s comments in Brussels, EU Commissioner Sir Julian King [British Conservative government appointed] demanded still more action. Facebook was still taking a “patchy, opaque, and self-selecting” approach. King supported “strengthened efforts to tackle disinformation, including more transparent political advertising, more resources for rapid response, and boosting their capacity to fight fake news.”

The tech giants and the political representatives of the ruling elite are desperate to control social media in order to criminalise political opposition and suppress free speech. In censoring their platforms, they function as the “trusted gatekeepers” for governments and ensure the “correct” interpretation of world events—i.e., spreading real fake news.

Their censorship agenda is driven by fear of a mounting and resurgent movement of the working class on every continent, expressed most clearly in Europe in France’s “yellow vest” movement. Under these conditions, the ruling elite view as an overriding imperative preventing the masses from accessing left-wing views and coordinating their struggles via social media.

The author also recommends:

Facebook hires former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg
[16 November 2018]

Facebook: The global censor
[29 December 2018]

Netflix censors criticism of Saudi crown prince, Yemen war


This video says about itself:

Update: Saudi Arabia | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj | Netflix

9 December 2018

Hasan Minhaj further dissects the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia in the wake of the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and examines the connection between American weapons and the mass starvation and destruction occurring in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

Translated from Dutch site Joop.nl today:

Netflix censors broadcast by Hasan Minhaj as requested by Saudi Arabia

Streaming platform Netflix has taken an episode of the satirical and socially critical program ‘Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj’ offline at the urging of Saudi Arabia, the Financial Times reports. In the broadcast, the comedian Minhaj fiercely criticizes the Saudi crown prince, his role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the dubious role that the regime plays in the war in Yemen.

Netflix confirms that they have removed the episode after a request from the Saudi Communications and Information Technology Commission which claims that the broadcast would supposedly violate ‘cyber-crime’ laws. These laws are used more often to silence critics. Activists who speak out against the government or their laws on social media are often sentenced and locked up for so-called cybercrimes. Article 6 of the law states that “production, preparation, broadcasting or storage of material that threatens public order, religious values, public standards and privacy” is punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a $ 800,000 fine.

The Netflix broadcast [by Minhaj] can still be seen on YouTube.

Let us hope it will stay there. I cannot be sure. As there has been censorship on YouTube, eg, of a German anti-fascist video.

An episode of “Patriot Act With Hasan Minhaj” has been removed by Netflix after Saudi Arabia expressed complaints.

SAUDI BAN HELPS MINHAJ Hasan Minhaj responded to Netflix complying with Saudi Arabia’s demands to block an episode of his talk show, saying on Wednesday that the move has only made the episode more popular. [HuffPost]

Corporate media news, real fake news


This 21 December 2018 video says about itself:

Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine has fired Claas Relotius, an award-winning staff writer, after finding he fabricated and invented facts in many articles in recent years.

By Peter Schwarz in Germany:

Der Spiegel’s counterfeit journalism and the campaign against “fake news”

31 December 2018

The exposure of journalistic fraud at the German news weekly Der Spiegel has lifted the lid on the manipulation of public opinion by the so-called “authoritative” media. While Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media systematically censor unwelcome posts, the supposedly “reliable” and “objective” reporting by the mainstream media proves to be propaganda produced in cooperation with the state to promote the interests of the ruling class. In the name of combatting “fake news”, freedom of the press and freedom of opinion are being gutted.

Last week, the editors of Der Spiegel, the highest-circulation German news magazine, admitted that they had published 55 articles by the journalist Claas Relotius that were “completely or partially invented, falsified, forged.”

Relotius has also written numerous articles for other German media outlets.

Since the public acknowledgment by Der Spiegel’s editors, the news weekly’s editorial board has endeavoured to portray the Relotius scandal as a unique case in which genius, a desire for prestige, nihilistic energy and psychological instability came together. According to media reports, Spiegel has provided the counterfeiter, who voluntarily resigned following his exposure, with psychological care and a lawyer.

Relotius may be an exception in the brazenness of his forgeries, but the much more important question is why his fabrications were published by Spiegel and other media and why he was awarded numerous journalistic prizes. At the tender age of 33, Relotius has received almost a dozen prestigious awards by juries that included not only journalists, but also prominent figures in politics and public life.

His forgeries, as it turns out, were by no means difficult to see through. The Spiegel editorial board repeatedly ignored anomalies and warnings. Now it admits with disarming openness that Relotius’ reports were “too good to be true.”

What is the significance of this scandal? According to commentators, although Relotius’ reports were fake, they were still “beautiful”, i.e., they corresponded to the narrative the editors and journalism award jurors wanted to promulgate. In his writing, “the present is concentrated into a readable format, the grand outlines of contemporary history become comprehensible, and suddenly the great whole becomes completely humanly comprehensible”, Spiegel editor-in-chief Ullrich Fichtner gushed following the exposure. As long as the forgeries were not discovered, they were welcome.

Many of Relotius’ articles deal with topics that are particularly sensitive from the point of view of bourgeois propaganda, such as the background to Trump’s rise in the US and the wars in Iraq and Syria.

To justify the Western military interventions in the Middle East, a fairy tale by Relotius about two young brothers (“lion boys”) kidnapped, tortured and trained by the Islamic State (ISIS) to become suicide bombers proved much more effective than a carefully researched piece into the real background to the wars. Such an article would have to admit—if it were honest—that ISIS and other Islamist militias are, above all, a product of the intrigues of the US and its allies in NATO and in the Middle East.

Relotius’s fabrications fit seamlessly into a stream of disinformation that has lasted for nearly 16 years—since then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his infamous speech at the UN on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Although the entire speech was based on lies and forgeries, it was largely accepted uncritically by the international media and served as a justification for the bloodiest war of the 21st century, which continues to this day.

Freedom of the press is an achievement of the bourgeois revolution. The bourgeoisie upheld it as long as it was fighting against the supremacy of the aristocracy, and later enshrined it in its constitutions. While capitalism remained capable of social compromise, such freedoms retained a spark of life. But freedom of the press is not compatible with war, militarism and a society based on intolerable levels of social inequality.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who exposed the Watergate scandal, were still being celebrated and honoured in the 1970s. Today, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who have uncovered incomparably more serious crimes of US imperialism, are isolated and living in forced exile, and must fear for their lives. Outrageous counterfeiters such as Relotius, on the other hand, are awarded prizes.

The incestuous relationship between the world of politics and the media has taken on a dimension that defies description. Billion-dollar media conglomerates dominate the press. Journalists and leading politicians know each other, mingle at the same bars, and frolic together alongside film stars and other celebrities at annual press galas.

As with the establishment political parties, the terms “left” and “right” have lost all meaning in relation to the media. Stefan Aust, previously the long-standing editor-in-chief of Spiegel, who began his career in 1966 at the left-wing publication konkret, is now editor of Die Welt, the flagship paper of the right-wing Springer publishing house.

Nikolaus Blome, deputy editor-in-chief of Springer’s rag Bild, worked for a time for the Spiegel editor-in-chief. Other leading journalists also regularly switch from one publication to the other, with the pro-Green Party taz proving to be particularly fertile ground for up-and-coming bourgeois journalists.

Relotius has also published his articles across the entire spectrum of the German media—from taz to Die Zeit, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Springer’s Welt. In second place behind Spiegel in terms of articles published by Relotius is the Swiss Weltwoche, mouthpiece of the ultra-right Swiss People’s Party, with 28 pieces.

Social reality, the sentiments and needs of the masses hardly exist in the closed circle of the political parties, the media and the super-rich. The media have become instruments of state propaganda. This is the reason Claas Relotius—a contemporary version of Thomas Mann’s impostor Felix Krull—could become a star journalist.

Workers and young people have long been suspicious of the official media and are searching the internet for alternative, more objective sources of information. This is the reason for the hysterical campaign against “fake news”, which serves as a pretext for censoring the internet and is directed in particular against left-wing, anti-capitalist publications. Both the European Union and the German government have enacted internet censorship laws under the false flag of combatting “fake news”. Facebook alone employs 30,000 people to censor unwelcome posts. Terms such as “comrade” and “brother” suffice for an entry to be deleted.

Fake ‘Russian’ interference by United States spies


This 27 December 2018 video from the USA is called Senate Security Expert Suspended From FacebookRussiaGate Crumbling.

By Will Morrow in the USA:

US intelligence think tank conducted “false flag” operation impersonating Russian election interference

31 December 2018

A series of articles published in the past week have revealed that the New Knowledge think tank conducted a “false flag” operation to influence the 2017 Alabama state election and make it appear that Russia was conducting a Twitter campaign to back its preferred candidate. New Knowledge is closely connected to the US intelligence agencies and has been widely cited as an impartial investigator of “Russian meddling” in US politics.

The story was first reported by the Washington Post on December 18 and the New York Times on December 19. Only a day earlier, both newspapers had carried lead front-page articles based largely on a New Knowledge report that claimed to provide new evidence of Russian social media operations to influence American politics.

As is the now well-established procedure, the report by New Knowledge was presented by the Times and Post as “independent” and scientific. The articles in the Times and Post were then made the basis for countless news articles and television reports breathtakingly reporting the latest nefarious activities of the Kremlin as established fact.

The New Knowledge report, entitled “The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency,” cited hundreds of predominantly left-wing social media posts on Facebook, including on police violence and government spying, to argue that Russian activities were sowing political divisions in the United States. It amounted to a brief for mass internet censorship directed against working-class political opposition. (See: “The disinformation campaign behind the allegations of Russian ‘disinformation’”)

In its December 19 article, the Times admits that New Knowledge CEO Johnathon Morgan was involved in an effort to promote the election of Democrat Doug Jones against Republican rival Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama Senate election. The operation, codenamed “Project Birmingham,” included creating fake Facebook pages to attract conservative voters and promote an obscure write-in conservative Republican candidate likely to draw votes away from Moore. The operation also sought to artificially inflate click rates on anti-Moore news stories in order to encourage more such articles. Moore ultimately lost the election.

Most significantly, the Times report includes the admission that the project “involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.”

The Times goes on to quote an internal report by New Knowledge, summarizing Project Birmingham: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.” Moore’s Twitter account was followed by numerous accounts with an obviously fake and Russian appearance, featuring profile pictures of celebrities and Russian cyrillic characters.

In other words, the very body cited as an impartial expert on unsubstantiated allegations of Russian “disinformation” itself carries out actual disinformation fabricating evidence of Russian meddling.

The Times article is itself an exercise in damage control aimed at preserving the credibility of New Knowledge and the intelligence agencies’ anti-Russia campaign, for which the Times and the Post have been leading voices.

As is suggested by the headline, “Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics,” it argues that New Knowledge and Morgan’s actions were a small-scale “experiment” aimed at testing the impact of Russian-style tactics. It further warns that New Knowledge’s actions were a sign that Russian tactics are being copied by other political groups, and that a further intensification of government censorship of social media is required.

It has since been revealed that the project went beyond the Times’ initial report—and that the Times knew of New Knowledge’s role long in advance but did not mention it even as it promoted New Knowledge’s own report. An article by Buzzfeed on December 27 reveals that Scott Shane, the Times national security correspondent who wrote a December 17 article based on New Knowledge’s report on Russian meddling, was one of a handful of speakers at a September meeting in Washington that discussed “Project Birmingham.”

The Project also involved another organization, American Engagement Technologies, which is run by Mikey Dickerson, a former Obama administration official and Google engineer. The organization received $750,000 from Reid Hoffman, the billionaire CEO of LinkedIn, and spent approximately $100,000 on Project Birmingham. The collaboration of New Knowledge in this operation underscores the close nexus between the intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party, and the technology companies that are leading the campaign for censorship.

New Knowledge and its CEO, Johnathon Morgan, epitomize the collection of state propaganda outlets, staffed by former intelligence agents and advisors, who are trotted out in media television panels and featured in news articles as sources for unsubstantiated allegations of Russian interference. New Knowledge’s co-founder, Ryan Fox, was an NSA agent for 15 years, and previously worked as an analyst for the US Joint Special Operation Command in the military.

Morgan himself was an advisor to the US State Department and helped create the Hamilton 68 “dashboard”, a project run by the German Marshall Fund, ostensibly tasked with tracking Russian disinformation activities, that is headed by Clint Watts, a former FBI agent and advocate of internet censorship.

Even if the allegations of a Russian social media operation since 2016, involving approximately $100,000 of paid Facebook ads, are true, they would pale in comparison with the actions of the US intelligence agencies, which are responsible for overthrowing governments, sponsoring coups, destabilizing governments and providing fake intelligence (“weapons of mass destruction”) for illegal US wars.

If the Washington Post and the New York Times, the so-called “newspaper of record” of what previously passed for American liberal journalism, were operating with a shred of journalistic integrity, the revelation of such compromising actions by New Knowledge would compel them to issue an immediate retraction of their previous promotion of New Knowledge’s investigations.

Neither will do so, because they do not function as houses of genuine journalism, but rather of government propaganda. The campaign over Russian-backed “fake news” is not based on actual facts but is itself the greatest fake news story of all. Its purpose is to justify mass censorship of the internet. Its target is not Russia, but political opposition among workers and young people inside the US, and their determination to obtain information outside of the control of the corporate media, and to organize struggles against social inequality on social media.

Facebook censorship update


This 9 August 2018 video from the USA is called Facebook teams up with NATO to censor news.

By Andre Damon in the USA:

Facebook: The global censor

29 December 2018

The year 2018 has seen a vast intensification of internet censorship by Google, Facebook and Twitter, transforming them from tools for exchanging information and communicating around the world into massive censorship dragnets for policing what their users say, do and think.

In August 2017, the World Socialist Web Site published an open letter to Google charging that the company, in collusion with the US government, was working to shape political discourse by manipulating search results. The open letter warned that Google’s actions set a dangerous precedent for subverting constitutional protections of freedom of speech and demanded that the company cease what the WSWS called “political blacklisting” of left-wing sites.

Sixteen months later, the central argument of the open letter—that Google and its peers are carrying out political censorship—is undeniable. The regime that Google pioneered through its search engine has been expanded to all major US social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

In a front-page article published Friday, titled “How Facebook Controls What World Can Say”, the New York Times writes that Facebook’s actions “make the company a far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself.”

Facebook has “quietly become, with a speed that makes even employees uncomfortable, what is arguably one of the world’s most powerful political regulators”, the article states. “Increasingly,” the Times concludes, “the decisions on what posts should be barred amount to regulating political speech—and not just on the fringes.”

The transformation of Facebook into an instrument for political censorship was driven home in an end-of-year statement by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg published just hours after the appearance of the Times report.

“We’re a very different company today than we were in 2016, or even a year ago”, writes Zuckerberg. “We’ve fundamentally altered our DNA to focus more on preventing harm in all our services, and we’ve systematically shifted a large portion of our company to work on preventing harm. We now have more than 30,000 people working on safety and invest billions of dollars in security yearly.”

Lurking behind the billionaire CEO’s sickly-sweet euphemisms about “harm prevention” is a much darker reality. The 30,000 employees Zuckerberg cites—a majority of Facebook’s workers—are engaged not in “harm prevention”, but “speech prevention”. They read the communications of Facebook users, determine what political views are and are not acceptable, and remove, ban or block users and posts.

Zuckerberg boasts that Facebook is “removing millions of fake accounts every day”, and working “to identify misinformation and reduce its distribution.” Facebook has “built AI systems to automatically identify and remove content related to terrorism, hate speech and more before anyone even sees it.”

In other words, every single Facebook post, comment and message is read and analyzed by humans, machines or both to determine whether or not it falls afoul of the company’s entirely arbitrary, undefined, amorphous and opaque (“and more”) standards.

If Facebook determines that what you post is “sensational”, such as a criticism of Israeli massacres of Palestinian civilians, your post may be secretly demoted. If you protest the persecution of Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority, your statements may be deleted. And, as Facebook has made clear, in certain unspecified cases it passes on information to the police and intelligence agencies based on users’ political statements.

Zuckerberg continues, “We’ve improved News Feed to promote news from trusted sources. We’re developing systems to automatically reduce the distribution of borderline content, including sensationalism and misinformation.”

In plain language, if Facebook determines that what you have to say is “borderline content” (whatever that may be), you will not be able to say it, and you cannot appeal to anyone.

“Trusted” sources, among which Zuckerberg has previously named the New York Times and Washington Post, are to be promoted, while those that question these quasi-official outlets of the American state will be gagged.

The Times article cited above concludes: “The company’s goal is ambitious: to reduce context-heavy questions that even legal experts might struggle with—when is an idea hateful, when is a rumor dangerous—to one-size-fits-all rules.”

It notes that the company has internal rules governing whether its users are allowed to use certain terms. “Words like ‘brother’ or ‘comrade’ probably cross the line”, the Times writes.

It adds that “Moderators say they face pressure to review about a thousand pieces of content per day. They have eight to 10 seconds for each post.”

Despite the explosive character of the article’s revelations, the report is a controlled release of information intended to push Facebook to systematize its censorship regime in coordination with the US government. Instead of what the article describes as a Byzantine maze of excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint files, the Times, one of the leading proponents of internet censorship, is demanding a clear set of government guidelines about what kind of speech Facebook is to remove.

But according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, as well as various international human rights agreements, the government has no right to tell anyone what he or she can and cannot say. “Congress shall make no law” declares the First Amendment, “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Facebook’s censorship drive has taken place at the direct instigation of the American state. In over a half dozen hearings this year by Senate and House committees, leading figures in the US Congress as well as officials from the intelligence agencies have demanded that the company create exactly the sort of Orwellian censorship regime that is now being described.

All of this is one great, unconstitutional, illegal conspiracy to destroy the freedom of expression.

The reasons behind the censorship drive are not hard to find.

The year 2018 has been one of mounting social struggle, ending in an international upsurge of the working class expressed most clearly in France’s “yellow vest” movement. With a looming global recession, mounting international antagonisms and deepening political crisis in the United States and other countries, the capitalist state faces what its representatives themselves call a “crisis of legitimacy.” It is desperately seeking to resolve this crisis by preventing the masses from accessing left-wing views and coordinating their struggles via social media.

But just as the coming year will see a further intensification of the class struggle, it will also see an upswing in the struggle against internet censorship.