Diamond & Silk speak on Facebook and Youtube suppression.
There are counter testimonies discussing moderating and net neutrality.
I have no competition online, so why am I being censored?
I publish the activities of Judiciary and DOJ, yet, I get banned on social media.
Consider me and my work entered into the official record, as an original source, that social media platforms and search engine algorithms intentionally suppress me...my Sweetie.
Google and see for yourself.
Beverly Tran
John Conyers, Jr.
Child Welfare Fraud
That is mean.
This is all about predictive modeling and databases and it started in child welfare.
This is how the congressional vote is manipulated through false advisement of the public record through privatization.
There are no civil rights in privatization.
This is one example of how they stole the vote.
Hank Johnson reduced the issue of suppression to one of Diamond & Silk using the Free Speech issue to one of implying that they are sack chasers.
He reduced the gravity of the situation to a degrading position of moral turpitude.
Jerrold Nadler is clearly not very good with statistics.
Sheila Jackson Lee is going nasty and has demonstrated that she lacks the sophistication of social media in an attempt to smear Diamond & Silk of being Russian operatives, attacking Oprah, accusing them of lying.
So much for advocating civil rights.
Sheila Jackson Lee reminds me of a wounded animal, backed up into a corner.
Did you do something mean to my Sweetie, Sheila?
Let us sit back and see the stats on this particular post.
Ted Deutch wants to to regulate morality.
Hakeem Jefferies pulled FEC Trump reports threatening perjury charges for Diamond & Silk regarding campaign field operations, but, to me, this sounds like an introduction into other FEC fraudulent campaign filings, like filings from "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).
Ted Lieu ridiculed the idea of free speech regulation of social media in the fairness doctrineby bringing in privatization.
He also said "Pizzagate".
Nice intro into the discussions.
Jamie Raskin is opening the doors, probably unwittingly, to blockchain because we are going quantum computing with full encryption and the need to discuss the trust funds.
It was at this point the live feed froze on Youtube.
This video is an actual person, PewDiePie, who has a base of almost 58 million, with thousands of other online vloggers, expressing public concerns to Net Neutrality, with tens of millions of more followers, whose views have been silenced from main stream media, and now through a cyber suppression of speech.
Sometimes, it is not about the policy, but the process of policy formation.
In this instance, online comments were used as a form of voting mechanism, with no verificaiton of identities, or, more than likely AI bots programmed to enteract and engage as anti-net neurtrality agents of communities.
If this is the case, that means dissinformation was disseminated that corrupted the public record in manipulation of data.
These data are used, in the same exact fashion as the purposes of the Library of Congress to advise in the obviation of policy.
This is false advise, in turn, strips the vote of the people by having the Member vote in accordance to its constiuents, who just so happen to be in this scenario, propaganda bots.
This is the transposable model for the historic investigation and why I am the scribe of history as an original source, or "Spoofing For Policy" because you must always ask yourself, "Cui bono?"
I used natural language processing techniques to analyze net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC from April-October 2017, and the results were disturbing.
The FCC is blocking a law enforcement investigation into fraudulent comments designed to provide bogus support for the agency’s looming net neutrality repeal. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently announced his office has been conducting an investigation into who submitted millions of fraudulent comments (some using the identities of dead people) during the public comment period.
The FCC is already facing a lawsuit alleging the agency ignored FOIA requests pertaining to these fake comments. The agency similarly told me there was nothing it could do after someone hijacked my identity to claim I falsely supported killing net neutrality protections.
Detailed analysis of the record 22 million comments filed with the agency indicate the majority of the public overwhelmingly supports keeping the rules intact. But several analysts also found that some group or individual tried to counter this genuine opposition with fake support for the plan. Schneiderman's office believes these comments were filed by a bot that pulled identities from a compromised database of some kind.
According to Schneiderman, his office made nine attempts over a period of five months to obtain server logs, API key details, or other information that could aid his office’s investigation into the identity theft. But in a public letter to FCC boss Ajit Pai, Schneiderman noted that the agency simply refused to aid the investigation in any capacity whatsoever.
“We all have a powerful reason to hold accountable those who would steal Americans’ identities and assault the public’s right to be heard in government rulemaking,” argued Schneiderman. “If law enforcement can’t investigate and (where appropriate) prosecute when it happens on this scale, the door is open for it to happen again and again.”
Last week, the FCC doubled down on its refusal to cooperate in a more formal response to the AG.
In a letter to the AG’s office by FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson, the agency lawyer again makes it clear the FCC has no interest in helping law enforcement get to the bottom of whoever is behind the farmed support for its repeal. Throughout the letter, Johnson repeatedly tries to imply that the wholesale fraud that occurred is inconsequential.
Johnson told the AG’s office that "while your letter suggests that the public comment process was somehow 'corrupted' by the alleged submission of comments under false names, you offer no evidence that this activity affected the Commission’s ability to review and respond to comments in the record."
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the FCC is required to solicit and seriously consider relevant comments from the public whenever issuing what’s called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Consumer groups charge the current FCC is not only ignoring the massive public backlash to the rules’ repeal, but is turning a blind eye to comment fraud in order to raise doubts about the validity of the entire process—and therefore the value of legitimate public opposition.
In the letter, Johnson tries to argue that manipulation of the FCC comment process is routine, while subsequently downplaying the importance of the comment process itself.
“As in many important rulemakings, this proceeding carries the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage," Johnson said. "But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal to determine what position has greater support, nor does it attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity."
Johnson also tried to imply that actually helping the AG’s inquiry into the bogus comments would be “too burdensome” for the FCC.
“Your staff has previously asked us to provide logs of Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses for certain comments,” said Johnson. “Even assuming that these logs would indicate that some comments originated from cloud-based automatic ‘bots,’ many others would reflect the IP addresses of authentic human users. It would be unduly burdensome, if not impossible, for the Commission to separate legitimate from illegitimate entries in the logs. Revealing the IP addresses of public commenters would also raise significant personal privacy concerns."
Given many of these folks either don’t exist or are mysteriously deceased, this sudden professed dedication to consumer privacy rings hollow (especially given the agency’s recent support of killing consumer broadband privacy protections). Similarly, FCC staffers have told me it would be relatively trivial for the FCC to provide data indicating which group used FCC APIs to submit fraudulent comments en masse.
Needless to say, Schneiderman’s office wasn’t particularly impressed by the FCC’s apathy to the problem.
"Today the FCC make[s] clear that it will continue to obstruct a law enforcement investigation," said Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman’s office. "It’s easy for the FCC to claim that there’s no problem with the process, when they’re hiding the very information that would allow us to determine if there was a problem."
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel also blasted the FCC's refusal to cooperate.
"This letter shows the FCC’s sheer contempt for public input and unreasonable failure to support integrity in its process," said Rosenworcel. "To put it simply, there is evidence in the FCC’s files that fraud has occurred and the FCC is telling law enforcement and victims of identity theft that it is not going to help. Moreover, the FCC refuses to look into how nearly half a million comments came from Russian sources. Failure to investigate this corrupted record undermines our process for seeking public input in the digital age."
As it stands, consumer advocacy firms indicate that undermining the process appears to have been the entire point. If you downplay the importance and integrity of the public’s one opportunity to weigh in on the FCC’s plan, it’s easier to pretend said plan is in the public interest.
Unfortunately for the FCC, this problem won’t be going away anytime soon. Despite requests to delay the vote by Schneiderman’s office and others, the FCC is scheduled to repeal the rules on Thursday. Once the repeal hits the federal register in January, the FCC will be bombarded with lawsuits accusing the agency of ignoring the public interest. Expect the agency’s failure to police comment fraud to play a starring role in these legal arguments to come.
Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
The Judiciary Committee has a central role in studying the issue of net neutrality and, more generally, competition on the Internet.
As the Committee considers today the specific question of whether antitrust law would be a better tool than regulation to ensure Internet competition and innovation, we should keep several factors in mind.
To begin with, failure to guarantee net neutrality is not an option.
As I have previously observed at prior hearings on this topic in 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015, there are many areas in the United States where consumers have the choice of only one or two broadband Internet service providers.
As a result, these broadband providers effectively function as monopolies or duopolies.
Their control over the broadband access market gives them the incentive and ability to provide differential treatment of content, depending on factors like how much a content provider pays or whether the broadband provider also offers competing content.
Such discrimination can lead to less consumer choice, less innovation, higher costs, and more power to control the flow of information and ideasin the hands of fewer broadband providers.
Enforcement of existing antitrust law as the exclusive or primary means of ensuring an open Internet, however, would be insufficient.
Under current antitrust law, there is relatively little that regulators can do outside the merger review context to address the conduct of a regulated industry, such as broadband Internet service with respect to enforcing net neutrality principles.
Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has limited the potential to successfully pursue claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to net neutrality.
In addition, antitrust enforcement alone would be a cumbersome, more limited, more resource-intensive, and after-the-fact way than regulation to develop a regulatory regime for net neutrality.
Moreover, antitrust law is not sufficiently broad in scope as it fails to address the non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the promotion of innovation and the protection of free speech and political debate.
While I welcome the recent efforts of some progressives to restore the original understanding and purpose of antitrust law to better account for the political implications of the excessive concentration of corporate power, antitrust law nonetheless will remain a necessary, but insufficient tool with respect to ensuring net neutrality.
In light of the foregoing, the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order provides a strong and vital set of rules for ensuring an open Internet, and the Commission should not rescind it.
Rules to address net neutrality have the benefit of addressing potential threats to an open Internet before they fully materialize.
Additionally, having a set of best practices enshrined in rules would provide certainty for industry.
I am particularly pleased that the Open Internet Order contains key provisions that I and many others long called for, including:
● a rule preventing broadband providers from blocking or throttling Internet access or from imposing paid prioritization of Internet traffic; and
● a prohibition on any other practices that unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage users’ ability to access broadband service or lawful content applications, or services.
These measures are the best way to protect the virtuous cycle of innovation – which net neutrality fosters, and which ensures both competition and innovation among broadband and content providers – to the ultimate benefit of consumers.
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony.
Needless to say, education in the United States pales the rest of the world, particularly in STEM and history.
For those who are not sophisticated in the fields of gaming. allow me to provide a snapshot synopsis of what it is.
Video games do not just provide a subject based interactive for individuals, particularly youth, it exposes them to participate in an educational path analysis of decision making through historical recreation of events which are seemingly always omitted in textbooks.
The entire genre of gaming includes opportunities for the video game enthusiast to delve into specific areas of interest, the likes of anthropology, politics, intellectual property, marketing, programming, graphics, research, language arts, law, policymaking and networking, which is entirely online and globally interactive.
If we do not start to realize that our educational models need to be individually designed to harvest and develop personal strengths of interest, rather than investing in an out-dated administrative instructional model, we will only perpetuate the intellectual constraints of creativity in the innovation of the future.
Quintessentially, the brick and mortar schoolhouse is being transformed to be located on a gaming counsel or a hand-held device.
This is just one storyline in the Assassin's Creed series by Ubisoft.
Just another reason why I do what I do because I am on a mission...
Democracy in Peril: Twenty Years of Media Consolidation Under the Telecommunications Act
Wall Street's sinister influence on the political process has, rightly, been a major topic during this presidential campaign. But, history has taught us that the role that the media industry plays in Washington poses a comparable threat to our democracy. Yet, this is a topic rarely discussed by the dominant media, or on the campaign trail.
But now is a good time to discuss our growing media crises. Twenty years ago this week, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act, signed into law on February 8, 1996, was "essentially bought and paid for by corporate media lobbies," as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described it, and radically "opened the floodgates on mergers."
The negative impact of the law cannot be overstated. The law, which was the first major reform of telecommunications policy since 1934, according to media scholarRobert McChesney, "is widely considered to be one of the three or four most important federal laws of this generation." The act dramatically reduced important Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on cross ownership, and allowed giant corporations to buy up thousands of media outlets across the country,
increasing their monopoly on the flow of information in the United States and around the world.
"Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few," said Eduardo Galeano, the Latin American journalist, in response to the act.
Twenty years later the devastating impact of the legislation is undeniable: About 90 percent of the country's major media companies are owned by six corporations. Bill Clinton's legacy in empowering the consolidation of corporate media is right up there with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and welfare reform, as being among the most tragic and destructive policies of his administration.
Of all the presidential candidates running in 2016, the Big Media lobby has chosen to back Hillary Clinton.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not merely a regrettable part of history. It serves as a stern warning about what is at stake in the future. In a media world that is going through a massive transformation, media companies have dramaticallyincreased efforts to wield influence in Washington, with a massive lobbying presence and a steady dose of campaign donations to politicians in both parties - with the goal of allowing more consolidation, and privatizing and commodifying the internet.
WASHINGTON -Today, during a full House Judiciary Committee hearing on “Wrecking the Internet to Save It? The FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules,” Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) delivered the following opening statement:
Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“The Judiciary Committee has a central role in studying the issue of net neutrality and, more generally, competition on the Internet. As the Committee considers today the specific question of what impact the Federal Communications Commission’s latest Open Internet Order has on competition and innovation, we should keep several factors in mind.
“To begin with, whatever approach one uses to ensuring an open Internet, inaction is not an option. There are real threats to net neutrality.
“As I have previously observed at hearings held on the issue of net neutrality in 2008, 2011, and 2014, there are many areas in the United States where consumers have the choice of only one or two broadband Internet service providers. As a result, these broadband providers effectively function as monopolies or duopolies. In turn, their control over the broadband access market can result in differential treatment of content depending on how much a content provider pays, whether the broadband provider also offers competing content, or if any other the financial incentives for discriminating for or against given content were present.
“The concerns that I have previously expressed have only become more problematic since then particularly in light of further acquisitions by broadband providers that may result in even less consumer choice, less innovation, higher costs, andmore power in the hands of fewer broadband providers.
“In light of this threat, I commend the Federal Communications Commission for its work in crafting a strong set of rules for ensuring an open Internet. Congress created the FCC to develop the specialized expertise to properly regulate the complex telecommunications industry in service of the public interest. And, after a lengthy rulemaking period during which almost 4 million Americans and all industry stakeholders made their voices heard on this issue, the FCC has fulfilled that mandate with respect to preserving and promoting an open Internet. Rules to address net neutrality have the benefit of addressing potential threats to an open Internet before they fully materialize.
“Additionally, having a set of best practices enshrined in rules would provide certainty for industry. The FCC’s net neutrality rules, therefore, must be given the opportunity to take root.
“I am particularly pleased that the FCC’s Open Internet Order contains key provisions that I and many others have long called for and that will help protect competition. These include –
● a rule preventing broadband providers from blocking or throttling Internet access or from imposing paid prioritization of Internet traffic;
● a restriction prohibiting any other practices that unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage users’ ability to access broadband service or lawful content applications, or services; and
● a requirement mandating disclosure to users of information concerning network management practices and any terms, conditions, or limitations on the broadband service.
“These measures are critical to protecting the virtuous cycle of innovation which net neutrality fosters, and which ensures both competition and innovation among broadband and content providers, to the ultimate benefit of consumers.
“Finally, enforcement of existing antitrust law as the exclusive or primary means of ensuring an open Internet would be insufficient. Under current antitrust law, there is relatively little that regulators can do outside the merger review context to address the conduct of a regulated industry such as broadband Internet service with respect to enforcing net neutrality principles.
“Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has limited the potential to successfully pursue claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to net neutrality.
“Moreover, exclusive reliance on antitrust enforcement is simply insufficient. While having the benefit of a more nuanced and fact-specific approach to the problem, antitrust enforcement alone would also be a cumbersome, more limited, more resource-intensive, and after-the-fact way to develop a regulatory regime for net neutrality.
“Another potential approach would be for the Federal Trade Commission to use its authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to stop “unfair methods of competition.”
“Although I hold an expansive view of Section 5, to the extent that this approach goes beyond the scope of the Sherman Act or other antitrust laws it would be very controversial, as my friends on the other side of the aisle would be the first to note.
“Moreover, antitrust law is not sufficiently broad in scope as it fails to address the non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the promotion of innovation and the protection of free speech and political debate. This is why Former Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Representative Zoe Lofgren and I introduced bipartisan legislation back in 2006 to strengthen antitrust law to address net neutrality, in part because the FCC was doing too little at that time, in my view.
“I do not have that concern with the FCC’s latest Open Internet Order. Rather, I congratulate them on their good work and welcome the Order’s full implementation.”
(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held a hearing entitled, “Net Neutrality: Is Antitrust Law More Effective Than Regulation in Protecting Consumers and Innovation?” During his opening remarks Ranking Members John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:
U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.
“I thank Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bachus for holding this important hearing on net neutrality and the role of antitrust law in ensuring a free and open Internet. The Judiciary Committee has a central role in studying the issue of net neutrality and, more generally, competition on the Internet, and I appreciate the Chairman’s decision to assert our jurisdiction.
“Turning to the specific question of whether antitrust is more effective than regulation in addressing net neutrality, we should keep three things in mind. To begin with, we need a regulatory solution to address potential threats to net neutrality and must allow the Federal Communications Commission to do its job. Congress created the FCC to develop the expertise so that it could properly regulate the complex telecommunications industry. Any FCC rules to address net neutrality could have the benefit of addressing some potential threats to net neutrality before they fully materialize. And, it could do so in a manner that would be more comprehensive than the piecemeal approach of antitrust enforcement.
“Additionally, having a set of best practices enshrined in rules would provide certainty for industry. The FCC’s efforts, therefore, must be given the opportunity to develop. In developing its rules to ensure a free and open Internet, the FCC should incorporate the following principles: broadband network providers should be prohibited from failing to provide access to its broadband network for any provider of content, applications, or services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; broadband network providers should be prohibited from blocking, impairing, or discriminating against or otherwise interfering with the ability of any person to use a broadband service to use or access lawful content, applications, or services on the Internet; and there should be strong transparency requirements regarding clear disclosure to users of information concerning any terms, conditions, or limitations on the broadband network service.
“The FCC began its latest rulemaking process only a month ago, and we must allow that process to proceed. To the extent that we do look to antitrust law as a way of ensuring net neutrality, enforcement of existing antitrust law would be insufficient. Under current antitrust law, there is relatively little that antitrust enforcers can do outside the merger review context to address the conduct of a regulated industry like broadband Internet service with respect to enforcing net neutrality principles. Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has limited the potential to successfully pursue claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act arising in the net neutrality context.
“Moreover, exclusive reliance on antitrust enforcement, while having the benefit of a more nuanced and fact-specific approach to the problem, would also be a cumbersome, more limited, more resource-intensive, and after-the-fact way to develop a regulatory regime for net neutrality. Another potential approach would be for the Federal Trade Commission to use its authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to stop ‘unfair methods of competition.’ While I hold an expansive view of Section 5, to the extent that this approach goes beyond the scope of the Sherman Act or other antitrust laws it would be very controversial, as my friends on the other side of the aisle would be the first to note. Moreover, antitrust law is not sufficiently broad in scope as it does not address the non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the protection of free speech and political debate.
“Former Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Representative Zoe Lofgren and I introduced bipartisan legislation back in 2006 to strengthen antitrust law to address net neutrality, in part because the FCC was doing too little at that time, in my view. I am certainly open to suggestions on how antitrust law can be better tailored to address net neutrality concerns, but if we go down that path, current law must be modified to codify net neutrality principles. Whether one supports a more antitrust approach or a more regulatory approach, inaction by Congress and regulators is not an option, as potential threats to net neutrality remain present.
“In my opening statements at our 2008 and 2011 hearings on this issue, I noted that in many parts of our country, consumers have the choice of only one or two broadband Internet service providers that effectively function as monopolies or duopolies. I noted then that the market power that these broadband providers enjoyed could lead to differential treatment of content carried by the provider depending on how much a customer pays or the financial incentives for discriminating for or against given content. The concerns I noted may have only grown since then, particularly in light of increasing consolidation in the telecommunications industry that may result in even less choice, less innovation, higher costs, and more power in the hands of fewer broadband providers.”
