cryptogon.com CIAs Secret War Plans Against WikiLeaks

September 26th, 2021

Via: Yahoo News:

In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in Ecuadors embassy in London, the CIA plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder, spurring heated debate among Trump administration officials over the legality and practicality of such an operation.

Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request sketches or options for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred at the highest levels of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. There seemed to be no boundaries.

The conversations were part of an unprecedented CIA campaign directed against WikiLeaks and its founder. The agencys multipronged plans also included extensive spying on WikiLeaks associates, sowing discord among the groups members, and stealing their electronic devices.

While Assange had been on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies for years, these plans for an all-out war against him were sparked by WikiLeaks ongoing publication of extraordinarily sensitive CIA hacking tools, known collectively as Vault 7, which the agency ultimately concluded represented the largest data loss in CIA history.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Here is the original post:

cryptogon.com CIAs Secret War Plans Against WikiLeaks

9/27/21 Kevin Gosztola on the CIAs War on Assange …

Kevin Gosztola is back on the show to discuss a recent Yahoo! News article about Assange that went viral. Gosztola thinks the piece contains some good reporting but leans too much on a flawed Russiagate framing. Scott and Gosztola discuss the semantic war our government is waging with attempts to redefine certain journalists as information brokers and non-state hostile intelligence agents. Gosztola also gives an update on Assanges situation as his next hearing approaches next month.

Discussed on the show:

Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, Unauthorized Disclosure. Follow him on Twitter @kgosztola.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; EasyShip; Drm; Free Range Feeder; Thc Hemp Spot; Green Mill Supercritical; Bug-A-Salt; Lorenzotti Coffee and Listen and Think Audio.

Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Read this article:

9/27/21 Kevin Gosztola on the CIAs War on Assange ...

Tribunal to combat disinformation on the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – The Canary

Support us and go ad-free

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is facing another extradition hearing on 27-28 October. The US authorities are appealing an earlier ruling that Assange should not be extradited to the US on health and safety grounds.

Now the US and its allies are to be put on trial by a tribunal. They are accused of committing atrocities, for example in Iraq, and of torture at Guantnamo Bay. While the tribunal possesses no legal powers, its intention is to set the record straight and demonstrate that Assange is not the criminal here.

The tribunal referred to as the Belmarsh Tribunal, after the prison where Assange continues to be held will commence proceedings on 22 October. There are 20 members of the tribunal, including:

Via a press release, Tariq Ali explains the tribunals origins:

The Tribunal takes inspiration from the Sartre-Russell Tribunal, of which I was also a member. In 1966, Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre issued a call for a War Crimes Tribunal to try the United States for crimes against humanity in their conduct of the war in Vietnam. A number of us were sent to North Vietnam to observe and record the attacks on civilians. I spent six weeks under the bombs, an experience that shaped the rest of my life.

The tribunal convened in Stockholm in 1967. The jury members included Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Isaac Deutscher, Vladimir Dedijer, Mahmud Ali Kasuri, and David Dellinger, among others. The aim was not legal but moral: to bring the crimes to the notice of the public.

In London on 22 October 2021, we will do the same. Assange must be freed and the many crimes of the War on Terror placed centre stage.

Read on...

Jeremy Corbyn says its all about accountability:

Wikileaks exposed crimes of US empire in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. At the Belmarsh Tribunal, we will turn the world the right way up, placing crimes of war, torture, kidnapping and a litany of other gross human rights abuses on trial.

The perpetrators of these crimes walk free, often still prominent public figures in the US, U.K. and elsewhere. They should be held accountable for the lives they destroyed and the futures they stole.

To understand why the imprisonment of Assange is a travesty of justice, its important to appreciate some of the many crimes, including war crimes, exposed by WikiLeaks.

As reported on by The Canary, during one of Assanges extradition hearings Reprieve human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith provided details of some of the war crimes committed by the US.

In a March 2019 article, the Canarys John McEvoy reported that according to a highly sensitive 2006 UK military report into Iraq, UK and US war planning ran counter to potential Geneva Convention obligations. He added how a US cable from April 2009 [published by WikiLeaks] shows UK business secretary Peter Mandelson pushing British oil and other corporate interests in Iraq. A 2009 cable also reveals that the government of former PM Gordon Brown put measures in place to protect [US] interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq.Another US cable also shows how the US and UK governments rigged the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stop it being able to hold [Tony] Blair and [George W.] Bush accountable for the crime of aggression over Iraq.

In 2018, journalist Mark Curtis reported that a WikiLeaks published cable revealed that former foreign secretary David Miliband helped the US to sidestep a ban on cluster bombs and keep the weapons at US bases on UK soil, despite Britain signing the international treaty banning the weapons the previous year.

In 2016, The Canary reported on several allegations of US war crimes based on testimony given by whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

Another article in The Canary referred to a cable published by WikiLeaks that suggested that the US had intended to convince Spanish officials to interfere with the National Courts judicial independence. This was in connection with an allegation that the [six US officials] accused conspired with criminal intent to construct a legal framework to permit interrogation techniques and detentions in violation of international law. The cable shows that the US secretly pressurised the Spanish government to ensure no prosecutions took place.

The Canary also reported on allegations of a cover-up relating to hundreds of UK war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. These included UK involvement in the use of torture centres in both countries. One such centre was Camp Nama where its alleged:

British soldiers and airmen helped operate a secretive US detention facility in Baghdad that was at the centre of some of the most serious human rights abuses to occur in Iraq after the invasion. Many of the detainees were brought there by snatch squads formed from Special Air Service and Special Boat Service squadrons.

Britain was also implicated in the extraordinary rendition (kidnapping and imprisonment) of detainees.

As for the number of Iraqis killed during the war, The Canary reported on figures far higher than the official estimates.

According to journalist Nafeez Ahmed:

the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Ahmed added that the overall figures of fatalities from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation constituted:

around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the war on terror), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

The prosecution of Assange is arguably political. Indeed, journalist John McEvoy points out how mass media has responded to recent news of a plot to kill Assange with ghoulish indifference.

UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has commented how Assange has been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. In other words, the Belmarsh Tribunal will at the very least help remind us that its the perpetrators of war crimes who should be prosecuted not the person who helped reveal those crimes.

As such, Assange should be released forthwith.

Featured image via Veterans for Peace / Wikimedia Commons

Originally posted here:

Tribunal to combat disinformation on the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange - The Canary

New questions on Assange and the CIA – Islington Tribune newspaper website

Tim Dawson, left, andJulian Assange

IT is the summer of 2017 and we are in the upmarket streets south of Knightsbridge tube.

Residents come and go from smart, brick apartments. Shoppers scurry towards Harrods, and visa applicants scan the brass plates of the areas many embassies.

But all is not as it seems. The street sweeper is a Russian GRU agent.

A patrolling bobby holds rank in MI5, and the four men digging out a water main are Central Intelligence Agency operatives.

Discreet weapons bulge beneath their garments and a secret service shoot-out is a simmering possibility.

This is according to a new report by Yahoo! News based on interviews with 30 former CIA agents.

Their interest was Julian Assange, at that time holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in Hans Crescent.

Donald Trump was president, Mike Pompeo was running the CIA, and the WikiLeaks founder was the subject of competing plans.

The Ecuadorians had tired of their visitor and were working with the Russians to spirit him to a Moscow-bound plane.

In Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, even more feverish schemes were afoot. The former CIA officers told Yahoo! News that they were planning to either kidnap, or assassinate Assange.

The British were there to keep an eye on our allies, and possibly to do the shooting if that became necessary.

It sounds like a fantasy, perhaps inspired by bingeing Bond movies.

Such have been the revelations of CIA dirty tricks in relation to Assange, however, that such a well-sourced story cant be dismissed.

During Assanges Old Bailey extradition hearings last September, witnesses described in granular detail the CIAs bugging of the Ecuadorian embassy.

Central Intelligence Agency HQ, Langley, Virginia [Carol M Highsmith Archive Library of Congress]

David Morales of UC Global, who was working for the CIA, installed the bugs particularly targeting areas like toilets where Assange might seek a discreet word with his lawyers.

Electronic devices left at the embassys reception were cloned, DNA swabs and fingerprints were stolen, and microphones that record through windows were deployed.

The QCs representing the US government at the extradition hearing, James Lewis and Clair Dobbin, were ferocious.

Every defence witness was subjected to their wringer. Professional competences were questioned, motives impugned and arguments unpicked.

No professor was too eminent, no lawyer too august to be spared a mauling.

To the elaborate story of the embassys bugging, however, the Americans legal rottweilers had no response. The evidence was left entirely uncontested.

Against that backdrop, revelations that the CIA contemplated monstrous criminality on Londons streets, has serious credibility. Their timing is also significant.

Just before Joe Biden assumed the US presidency, in January, Judge Vanessa Baraitser dismissed the US application to extradite Assange.

Many expected Trumps crazed get WikiLeaks agenda to be quietly shelved. This has not happened.

There do appear to be cool heads in Washington, however, who are hoping to undermine the US case when it comes to the Royal Courts of Justice in late October.

Why else would a plethora of ex-CIA staffers brief Yahoo! News? Theirs is an effective campaign.

The extradition case depends on the promise of a fair trial and humane treatment if Assange faces US justice. These fresh revelations surely render that case laughable?

They also make wholly unbelievable the USAs insistence that its pursuit of Assange is not political.

For Assange, who remains in HMP Belmarsh, this is a fresh crumb of hope. For those who believe in an unfettered media, however, a dark cloud remains.

How can a country like the US, that is constitutionally bound to support free speech, have descended to contemplating such criminal depths to shut up the publisher of inconvenient truths?

Tim Dawson is a past president of the National Union of Journalists.

Continue reading here:

New questions on Assange and the CIA - Islington Tribune newspaper website

Craig Wright, Dune and the Satoshi myth – CoinGeek

Warning: This piece will spoil elements of the Dune series, while giving a disclaimer that it is nearly impossible to succinctly cover all of the themes of the series in a single piece.

No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero. Frank Herbert, Dune

Dune is the story of a boy named Paul Atreides who is thrust into a foreign land where the outgoing rulers see him as an enemy and the local people see him as a savior. The story examines the consequences of Pauls terrible purpose of leading the local people in rebellion against the occupying forces of their land. Dune is the not the typical white savior trope that we see in countless stories throughout history, rather it is an examination of the dangers that heroes present to the people they give promise to. It forces us to ask hard questions about the natures of leaders in society and the ramifications of their actions long after they are gone.

But oh, the perils of leadership in a species so anxious to be told what to do. How little they knew of what they created by their demands. Leaders made mistakes. And those mistakes, amplified by the numbers who followed without questioning, moved inevitably toward great disasters. Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune

In 2010, just a year after launching the Bitcoin project, Satoshi Nakamoto was already seeing the terrible purpose of what he started. Radical elements in the small Bitcoin community wanted to use Bitcoin as a political tool to help Wikileaks, who at the time was struggling to find banking partners. Satoshi made a plea to Wikileaks not to use Bitcoin, which he saw as a small beta community in its infancy. Later that year, just prior to Satoshis public exit from the project, he wrote that Wikileaks has kicked the hornets nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.

Two days later, he wrote his last public post on the forum. Two months later, Silk Road would officially launch and enable the buying and selling of drugs and other illicit materialutilizing Bitcoin as the currency of the market.

Throughout the story of Dune, Paul continually can see into the future and recognizes that by taking on the mythical role of MuadDib, he will enact his terrible purpose across the universe. He sees legions of soldiers taking up arms across the universe and enacting bloodshed in his name. Paul knows that by donning the myth of MuadDib and succeeding in helping to liberate the Arrakeen people on Dune, he will cause greater turmoil as a result.

Satoshi Nakamoto didnt intend to create a mythology around himself, but the mysterious way he emerged and departed did that on its own. While Satoshi couldnt see into the future, he seemed to have a prescience for the trouble that was coming his way.

I would prefer to be secret now. I dont think I should have to be out there I dont want money, I dont want fame, I dont want adoration, I just want to be left alone I had other people decide [to out me as the creator], and theyre making [my] life very difficult. Craig Wright, AKA Satoshi Nakamoto in 2016

In 2015, Dr. Craig S. Wright was, against his will, doxed as the creator of Bitcoin, though some had begun piecing together the story even earlier. Up until this point, Satoshi Nakamoto lived as a myth in the minds of Bitcoinersa mysterious figure that had, like Prometheus, gifted humanity with a technology that allowed for unprecedented amounts of economic innovation. Craig was clearly uncomfortable donning the role of Satoshi Nakamotohe had a hard time admitting that he created Bitcoin to reporters that asked him. He even mentioned to Andrew OHagan that he thought he would never have to admit that he was Satoshi, and would have preferred it that way.

Early on, Craig Wright tried his hardest to kill the mythos of Satoshi Nakamoto. While most people were expecting some kind of God to emerge, they instead got Craiga loud-mouthed Australian who didnt always interact well with other people. Craig saw churches dedicated to Satoshi Nakamoto emerge and saw it as a hugely negative thingbut there was nothing he could do to stop it. He sought a different pathin 2017 he stated that he was here to kill off Satoshi: There is no fucking king. There is no glorious leader [of Bitcoin] There is not going to be some great leader standing above There is not going to be one person that we come and answer to.

If you want a system to be built on truth and start trying to get people to understand, whats better: a scenario where people blindly follow you because of a name or a slow battle where you convince people using facts, mathematics and science? Ill tell you that people dont learn if you come out there and build a cult of followers. They spout what you say, but dont understand it. Craig Wright, AKA Satoshi Nakamoto in 2018

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Wrights favorite novel as a teenager was Dune. In 2017 and 2018 we saw Craig try his hardest to kill the mythos of Satoshi and use reason to convince the world why his vision for Bitcoin was the vision of its creator. After giving birth to a cryptocurrency industry rife with scams, Ponzi schemes, and outright fraudCraig saw it as his responsibility to preach the truth about Bitcoin. Like Paul Atreides, he learned how hard it was to kill a myth.

Years after Paul becomes Emperor of the Universe, a religion is formed around MuadDib. Paul endures an assassination attempt by the priests of this religion who had hoped to turn Paul into a martyr, allowing them to control the religion of MuadDib. Paul escapes these attempts and retreats to the desert, where he was largely viewed to have been dead. He re-emerged in disguise as a preacher, preaching against the exaltation of MuadDib. This angered the priests of the religion of MuadDib, and they sought a way to silence him. Paul ultimately fails, and is killed by his own followers.

Greatness is a transitory experience. It is never consistent. It depends in part upon the myth-making imagination of humankind. The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in. He must reflect what is projected upon him. And he must have a strong sense of the sardonic. This is what uncouples him from belief in his own pretensions. The sardonic is all that permits him to move within himself. Without this quality, even occasional greatness will destroy a man. Frank Herbert, Dune

In 2019, something changed for Craig. Craig began to embrace his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto. In June of 2019 he, for the first time publicly, definitively stated to Jimmy Nguyen on stage at CoinGeek that he was the inventor of Bitcoin and the author of the 2008 Bitcoin whitepaper. He became comfortable as Satoshi Nakamoto. He began to speak openly about his past mistakes, took pleasure in some of the mystery around the Satoshi myth, and began speaking more heavy-handed about the nature of the Bitcoin protocol:

Let me make this absolutely abundantly clear. Im not here to be your friend, and I wont do anything that changes the nature of bitcoin just because people will like me or stop treating me like shit. I created bitcoin for a reason, and I dont really care if you like that reason or not, and Im not putting up with crap from other people who think I should have done it differently. Craig Wright, AKA Satoshi Nakamoto in 2021

Its clear what changed for Craigin 2018 Ira Kleiman began a lawsuit against Craig over billions in Bitcoin arguing that his brothers estate was entitled to half of Satoshi Nakamotos bitcoins. By 2019, it seemed inevitable that the truth would have to come out. The decision to embrace his identity of Satoshi Nakamoto was decided for Craig, despite his unwillingness to do so: I wanted to remain private. They took that away.

In two weeks, Craig and Ira Kleiman will go to court in Florida to decide the fate of Satoshi Nakamotos bitcoins. The mythology of the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto will dissolve into depositions, email exhibits, and cross-examinations. Despite the attempts by the BTC priesthood to martyr Satoshi as the anti-establishment cypherpunk that they want him to be, we will learn about the brilliant, yet flawed, man that he is instead. The statues, churches, and lies will be torn down.

Satoshi Nakamoto has not asked you to follow him. Satoshi Nakamoto released a force upon the world that became its own myth. Others have cultivated this myth to serve their own purposesfinancial, political, and philosophical. Craig could have signed with a key in 2016 and used the myth for his own aim, but he seemed to understand the trap Frank Herbert warns about Greatness:

If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize winner, Jean-Paul Sartre said when he received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964.

Knowing theres a trap is the first step in evading it the first step along the Golden Path. Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

The Dune series ultimately shows us that Paul isnt the hero that is promised at the beginning of the story. It shows the dangers in worshipping the hero, and the impossibility of any one man to live up to the myths that are built around heroes. We learn, eventually, that Pauls ability to see into the future led him to reject the terrible purpose he saw for himself. Far into the future he saw the extinction of humanity if it stagnated and remained confined within the known universe and rigid class structure of the Imperium. However, Paul couldnt bring himself to do what had to be done to prevent it. His son, Leto, takes on this challenge and eventually transforms into a sandworm (yeahit gets weird) that lives for tens of thousands of years to teach humanity a lesson that they will remember in their bones. Leto becomes a tyrannical God Emperor in order to enact the Golden Path. Leto was seen as a God to the people he ruled, but his inner thoughts were utterly human. This tyrannical approach ultimately enacted a scattering across the Universe to ensure the survival of the human race and an appreciation for freedom.

Letos Golden Path was to ensure the survival of humanity. By 2017, Craig Wright had enacted his own Golden Path to ensure the survival of Bitcoin.

Up to 2017, Craig tried to use reason and logic to convince the global Bitcoin economy to increase the block size and restore the original Bitcoin protocol. By the end of the year, he was helping BCH to do just that. By 2018, he learned the futility of trying to reason with those that sought to stagnate the growth of Bitcoin with protocol tinkering. Satoshi enacted his own Golden Pathrestoring and locking the protocol down to ensure that Bitcoin could not go extinct. To some developers this is tyrannicalthe BCH/BTC developers that wanted CTOR, DATASIGVERIFY, Schnorr Signatures, Taproot, Segwit, and more certainly think so. Craig Wright sees all of these as extinction threats to Bitcoin, and anyone who truly understands his creation can be gifted the same prescience.

We are currently living in Satoshi Nakamotos Golden Path. It exists as something that you and I have no control over, but are trapped in.

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it. Frank Herbert, Dune

Satoshi Nakamoto controls the fate of Bitcoin in his hands. When this court case is over, the owner of the Satoshi bitcoins will have the ability to destroy BTC, BCH, and/or BSV in an instant. This is terrifying to those who do not want Satoshis identity to be revealed. Coinbase went so far as to list the unmasking of Satoshi Nakamoto as a risk factor in their Initial Public Offering.

Someone who understands Herberts lesson on Greatness would be a terrifying Satoshi Nakamoto to all of those who sought to usurp his invention for their own personal triumphs. Unfortunately for some, it seems Satoshi Nakamoto learned quite a bit from Dune:

It is not being Paul that is hardest, it is being Leto and acceptance of change. Being an agent of change. Being changed. Craig Wright, AKA Satoshi Nakamoto in 2019

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeeksBitcoin for Beginnerssection, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoinas originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamotoand blockchain.

Read more here:

Craig Wright, Dune and the Satoshi myth - CoinGeek

TikTok shadowbans: What is a shadowban and how to fix it – Dexerto

If youve noticed that your engagement on TikTok has taken a massive dip, theres a chance you may have been shadowbanned. But what are shadowbans, and are they actually real?

As TikTok increasingly becomes peoples go-to platform for content, more and more creators are flocking to the app to try and build their presence there.

This means that there are plenty of people who are keeping a close eye on their engagement, and often notice when there is a sharp decrease in likes, views, and sometimes comments.

Some attribute this phenomenon to shadowbans, but fixing the issue is not an entirely straightforward process.

Shadowbanning refers to a platform or service blocking or partially blocking a users visibility or access on a certain site without officially informing them.

Its a phenomenon seen across multiple different sites, such as Instagram, however some debate whether shadowbans on TikTok are actually real.

You may find that your videos are no longer appearing on peoples For You Pages, leading to a drop in engagement, which may happen if you post spam or potential adult content (though none of this has been confirmed by TikTok.)

If you suspect that your videos are being hidden from peoples For You Pages, there are a few steps you can try to attempt to resolve the issue.

However, its worth noting that none of these fixes guarantee that the issue will be resolved.

TikTok users are continuously mystified by the concept of shadowbans, but as of yet the platform hasnt released specific information regarding them.

Read more:

TikTok shadowbans: What is a shadowban and how to fix it - Dexerto

Facebook says Craig Kellys content on United Australia party page OK after banning MP – The Guardian Australia

Facebook says the United Australia partys page does not violate the social media giants community standards despite carrying prominent content from Craig Kelly, whose accounts have been banned for breaching the social media companys misinformation policy.

Last month, Labors Tim Watts asked the social media behemoth to explain how advertisements fronted by Kelly the former Liberal and now federal parliamentary leader of the UAP could still be in wide circulation on the platform when his page is banned.

Kellys profile was suspended for a number of weeks earlier this year over posts promoting hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and questioning the effectiveness of masks. Facebook then made the ban permanent in April.

Before he was removed from the platform, the outspoken MP had amassed more than 86,000 followers and was frequently one of the highest performers among politicians on Facebook.

Kelly quit the Liberal party in February in part because he wanted to keep posting about unproven treatments for Covid-19.

Facebook has now responded to Watts, the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity. Mia Garlick, Facebooks director of policy in Australia and New Zealand, told the Labor frontbencher the different approaches in enforcement reflected the fact the accounts had different purposes.

As a matter of public record, under our harmful health misinformation policy, we have removed the Facebook and Instagram accounts representing Mr Craig Kelly MP for repeated violations of our community standards, Garlick said in correspondence seen by Guardian Australia.

Garlick told Watts Facebook had also removed additional accounts that appear to have been created with the purpose of evading this enforcement.

But this did not extend to the UAPs accounts because the page does not currently violate community standards on repeat offending due to the difference in purpose of the banned accounts (to specifically represent Mr Kelly) and the purpose of this page (to cover the United Australia party more generally, including other candidates).

In his complaint to Facebook in September, Watts noted the UAP had launched a new campaign on both Facebook and Google, spending more than $500,000 on advertising in a month. Watts suggested the conduct amounted to ban evasion.

It is difficult to understand how Facebooks rules could allow for an individual to be banned from Facebook for repeatedly sharing misinformation about Covid-19, while also allowing that individual to return to the platform as the leader of a group with plans for a massive social media advertising spend, Watts said at that time.

The Labor frontbencher told parliament on Monday of the 19 videos on the UAP page, 14 are of the member for Hughes he voices them, he authorises them under Australian electoral law and hes spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising them.

Watts said it wasnt good enough for Facebook to say the activity was acceptable because the UAP had a different purpose to Kellys now deleted account.

He said Facebook had said previously it would take down new pages in the voice of a previously banned individual.

Im sick of long statements from Facebook that say a lot but ultimately declare that they arent going to do anything, he said.

Kelly told Guardian Australia on Monday he was close to launching legal proceedings against Facebook for defamation and breach of contract. Kelly contends the platform defamed him when Facebook said he had been banned for spreading misinformation.

He said he was unaware about the removal of additional accounts referenced by Garlick in her response to Watts, although he said prior to the ban he had two Facebook accounts, and both had been removed.

Of Watts complaint to Facebook, Kelly said: It is very disappointing that another member of the Australian parliament has attempted to declare me an un-person. Mr Watts conduct is an affront to free speech.

He said Watts needed to take a good hard look at himself.

Watts said on Monday Kelly was entitled to say whatever he likes here meaning in the parliament. But he said he should not be entitled amplification by an algorithm that advantages the divisive and the outrageous.

Garlick told Watts Facebook continued to actively work to combat the sharing of Covid-related misinformation in Australia, and we are committed to take an aggressive approach in response.

More:

Facebook says Craig Kellys content on United Australia party page OK after banning MP - The Guardian Australia

Achieving Instagram Growth In The Age Of AI And Algorithmic Bias – Forbes

Social Media Mural

In 2021, Instagram will be the most popular social media platform. Recent statistics show that the platform now boasts over 1 billion monthly active users. With this many eyes on their content, influencers can reap great rewards through sponsored posts if they have a large enough following with this many eyes on their content.

Over the last few years, it has become clear that Instagram has an algorithmic bias towards certain accounts. Marginalized groups such as LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC have repeatedly been vocal about seeing their reach shrink significantly under the current system.

The question for today then becomes: How do we effectively grow our Instagram account in the age of algorithmic bias? Instagram expert and AI growth specialist Faisal Shafique help us answer this question utilizing his experience growing his @fact account to about 8M followers while also helping major, edgy brands like Fashion Nova to over 20M.

Faisal has been actively involved in Instagram since 2012 when as a medical student in college, he identified Instagram as a powerful platform of the future. Faisal took the unconventional route to start @fact as a medical student and steadily began learning the ropes.

After graduation, Faisal decided to follow his passion for social media rather than pursue a career in medicine. That singular decision has led him on a rather exciting path to becoming one of the most recognized influencers on Instagram and a consultant for many top companies and celebrities that he has helped build staggering platforms on Instagram.

Having grown his platform to about 8 million followers and helping others achieve even more, Faisal has had to stick with Instagram through many seasons and the plethora of changes in their algorithm over the last decade,

In his own words, because of the constantly changing algorithms, it is very easy to get left behind on these platforms. Success on Instagram often has a lot to do with keeping your hand on the pulse, and to build enviable followership you often need help.

Companies like Instagram use algorithms to dictate what your feed should look like- which means that you're only seeing posts from people or brands that they want or brands that pay them. In this article, we try to understand a little about how this algorithm works.

One of the main misconceptions that creators have is the assumption that there is only one Instagram algorithm. According to Instagram themselves, we use a variety of algorithms, classifiers, and processes, each with its purpose.

Faisal explains that Instagrams algorithm can calculate a score of interest, which calculates how likely someone is to interact with a post.

There are four key factors that Instagram leverages to calculate a score of interest.

Shafique explains further; The Instagram algorithm will give your post more visibility if; your posts are set up to make people spend more time on it. If it is likely to be liked, commented on or saved, and if it contains CTAs that enable people to take actions like tapping on your profile.

Instagram is constantly identifying what its users are interested in and adapting its feed to reflect that. Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, admits as much, We add and remove signals and predictions over time, working to get better at surfacing what youre interested in,

This constant evolution is responsible for the difficulty in breaking into the scene and remaining constantly relevant. It is also partly responsible for the algorithmic bias that has become a major complaint about Instagram. How can users understand the algorithm and keep in touch with it? And how fair is the algorithm to certain kinds of content and people groups?

The Instagram algorithm is one of the most talked-about topics in tech right now. The company has been under scrutiny for being biased against influencers and artists whose content doesn't align with specific values (usually, posts that are sexual or political) or whose views align with or promote LGBTQIA per BIPOC philosophies.

The term shadowbanning has become popularized as a term that explains one way Instagram purportedly propagates this bias. Shadowbanning is an unexplained throttling of an account so that its reach is limited, its posts are taking down, or its followers cannot find them.Influencers such as Giampaolo Ienna have been affected by this trend. Ienna says he has been unable to grow his brand properly due to an unfair racial bias of the algorithm.

Instagram has since denied that shadowbanning is a real thing, but a deep look at their operations reveals that though the term shadowbanning may not be an Instagram-approved term, the practice is somewhat real. Instagram does not necessarily have people picking out posts and banning them, but their algorithms are trained on datasets many suspect to be biased and unenlightened.

Faisal Shafique

For instance, Instagram polices sexuality with very little nuance, finding it difficult to differentiate adult entertainment from sex-ed, sex-health, or sex-commentary. Ads for womens pleasure companies and HIV/AIDS prevention are not allowed, while the platform allows ads for erectile dysfunction and condoms.

Faisal explains that; working with fashion brands like Fashion Nova whose contents are edgy, risque, and unique. You have to essentially learn how to game the gram and to adapt your content consistently.

To achieve Instagram domination you need access to relevant data. The past informs your future success. According to Shafique, It is very important to use analytics to see what content works and doesnt work and how your community is engaging with your posts over time. Sometimes, this is the only way you can learn about subtle algorithmic changes.

Creativity and the ability to make visually striking content are certainly at the top of the algorithms requirements. Other major traits include; consistency, publishing more video content, crafting captivating headlines and going live more often, and never ignoring Instagram stories.

For Stories, the algorithm works differently; creators stand a greater chance of having their stories viewed if they post consistently. The more views creators gain, the higher their ranking. Stories are meant to be binge-watched, so the chances are that if creators post regularly, they will get viewed. Stories are also shown to users based on location, which explains why location-based hashtags are now frequently used.

Many creators want to also appear frequently on the explore page. The Instagram algorithm works similarly with feeds and explore, but according to Instagram themselves, the most important actions we predict in Explore include likes, saves, and shares.

However, to come up in the Explore page, you need a creative use of hashtags and keywords since those are the two indices people now search with. Creators and influencers often need to rely on expert help to ensure that they do not become shadowbanned by using banned hashtags or banned keywords.

Over 50 plus-sized content creators recently signed up to participate in the Dont Delete My Body project, calling on Instagram to stop censoring fat bodies.According to Dr. Emil Kohan, a Los Angeles based plastic surgeon, the phenomenon of silencing plus sized voices also speaks to the problem of IGs tendency to promote and celebrate a specific type of body. This and the issue of filters has led to an increase in requests for plastic surgery among young women, says Dr. Kohan.

The rallying against these biases is becoming more frequent and more forceful. Although instagram has subtlyadmitted that its algorithm has some biasesand has vowed to evolve away from these biases, the company unlikely to change even in the face of mass criticism. So, we have to learn to walk the tightrope and advocate for change, while also supporting alternatives.

Originally posted here:

Achieving Instagram Growth In The Age Of AI And Algorithmic Bias - Forbes

Boris Johnson accused of breaking pledge to beef up laws to protect footballers against online racism – iNews

Boris Johnson has been accused of failing to deliver on his promise to beef up football banning orders to include online racism in the wake of the abuse aimed at Englands footballers.

The Prime Minister pledged in July to extend powers to ban fans from attending football matches if they are found guilty of racially attacking players online, insisting there would be no ifs, no buts.

It came after Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho were subjected to a torrent of abuse when England lost the Euro2020 final on penalties.

Labour has demanded Mr Johnson make good on the commitment he made in the House of Commons, insisting it has been more than three months since he promised to take action.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, the Prime Minister told MPs the Government was taking practical steps to ensure banning orders were changed, so that if a person is guilty of racist online abuse of footballers, they will not be going to the matchno ifs, no buts, no exemptions and no excuses.

The issue was raised again in September when Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries promised to write to her opposite number immediately on the topic, but Labour insists no letter has been received.

The party says that the failure to implement the change promised by the PM back in July has left football players exposed to countless racist attacks online.

Shadow Culture Secretary Jo Stevens said: After the appalling abuse of the England football team during the Euros, there was quite rightly outrage from across the political spectrum.

But its been more than three months since the Prime Minister backed Labours call to treat online abuse in the same way as racism directed at players from the terraces and extend football banning orders.

Labour is now calling on the Government to put forward measures so they can be voted through Parliament.

Mr Johnson is also under pressure to stick to another promise made in the Commons this week to make social media bosses criminally liable for the foul content hosted on their platforms.

The pledge went beyond the existing provisions set out in the draft Online Safety Bill, and comes after it emerged that Instagram does not view monkey emojis to be racist.

Self regulation has manifestly failed and criminal sanctions, we believe, are the best way to change the arrogant culture of the leadership of social media companies who believe they are above the law, Ms Stevens added.

Read more from the original source:

Boris Johnson accused of breaking pledge to beef up laws to protect footballers against online racism - iNews

How effective has the 25-year ban on pistols been since the Dunblane massacre? – expressandstar.com

A pistol is displayed above a pile of firearms after it was crushed at the start of a two=week gun amnesty in Nottingham in 2004

A quarter of a century on, has the ban on pistols or 'handguns' as they were popularly referred to in the tabloid press made Britain a safer place?

When then home secretary Michael Howard announced the measures on October 16, 1996, he achieved the distinction of upsetting people on both sides of the debate.

Gun clubs accused Mr Howard of an over-reaction that would put thousands of jobs at risk, while those calling for tighter regulation criticised him for making an exception for 0.22 calibre target pistols.

The ban was introduced in response to the massacre at Dunblane Primary School on March 13 that year, when former scoutmaster Thomas Hamilton walked into the gym and killed 16 young children and their teacher. He also injured 13 other children and three teachers. Hamilton then shot himself.

Within two days of the new laws being announced, Warren Hawksley MP told a West Midland audience that the bill would be futile.

"My final point is a word of warning to the general public and to the parents of Dunblane,'' he told Bridgnorth Supper Club on October 18. 1996.

"No-one wants another Dunblane but please do not sleep any happier in your beds after the bill has gone through Parliament.

"Hopes of no more atrocities, I fear, are groundless.''

Mr Hawksley, the late Tory MP for Halesowen & Stourbridge, and who previously represented The Wrekin, was a keen clay-pigeon shooter. He said it was targeting people who enjoyed a legitimate sport, while doing nothing to deal with the four million illegally held guns on the street.

Paul Leatherdale, 38, who represented Great Britain at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, said it ruined the sport.

Ross Armstrong, owner of Medway Shooting Club in Kent said: "People are killed by drunk drivers but no-one demands a ban on cars. Further restrictions suit no-one."

But the bill was also met with fierce criticism for allowing the small-bore pistols favoured by target shooters, albeit with restrictions that they could only be kept at gun clubs. This exception was quickly reversed when Tony Blair's Labour government took office the following May, and since then the UK Olympic team had to train in Northern Ireland which was not covered by the ban.

At the time the ban was announced, Labour's shadow home secretary Jack Straw accused the Government of being slow to act, arguing that the laws should have been brought in following the Hungerford massacre in 1987, when Michael Ryan shot 16 people dead in the sleepy Berkshire town.

While opponents of the ban may have had a point about the number of illegally held guns, it was also an inescapable fact that both Hamilton and Ryan committed their crime using legally held, fully licensed firearms.

The Countryside Alliance was quick to point out that criminal use of pistols increased by 40 per cent over the two years after the new laws were introduced.

Indeed, by 2001, gun crime had actually doubled, although Prof Peter Squires, a professor of criminology at Brighton University and campaigner for tighter gun laws, points out that was largely down to the way gun-crime was recorded at the time.

Before 2003, 'gun crime' figures included any incident where a victim reported that a gun was used, even if that gun was never fired, or was a replica. The Government responded by amending these laws, so the use of air weapons and pellet guns were placed under the auspices of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, which meant gun crime figures purely under their Firearms Act definition decreased markedly over the next 10 years.

The number of homicides by shooting is perhaps a more reliable measure, and this does appear to suggest that the laws have had some effect in making our streets safer. In 1995 there were 70 incidences of murder or manslaughter caused by shooting, but the figure rose to an all-time high of 96 in 2001/2002. After this time, the number of homicides fell steadily until June 2010, when taxi driver Derrick Bird shot 12 people dead and injured 11. Bird, who later turned the gun on himself, used a legally held rifle which was not subject to the ban. In 2010/11, 60 homicides were recorded, still lower than 1995, and in recent years the figure has stabilised at around 30 gun homicides a year. At 0.05

It is also worth bearing in mind that the same period has seen a sharp in the number of knife crimes. In 1995 there were just under 200 knife-related homicides, but the figure had risen to more than 280 by 2018. Has the banning of pistols led to an increase in knife-related incidents? Its impossible to know, but the death of Sir David Amess is a timely reminder that the tighter licensing of guns can only be part of the solution.

See the rest here:

How effective has the 25-year ban on pistols been since the Dunblane massacre? - expressandstar.com