Facebook’s deliberate censorship of alternative news is nothing compared to Wikipedia’s censorship of alternative medicine
by: Daniel Barker
(NaturalNews) The old maxim “There is no such thing as a free lunch” has taken on a whole new level of meaning in the internet age, particularly when applied to so-called “free” services like Facebook and Wikipedia.
Both of these digital era giants would like the public to believe that they are providing free and useful platforms based on user-created content, but the real truth is that both are heavily influenced by outside interests that dictate what is presented to the public and, perhaps more importantly, what is not allowed to be presented, according to the various agendas of these shadowy but powerful influences.
Facebook censorship and propaganda
For example, Facebook regularly censors content it deems unfit while stacking the deck in favor of “causes” it supports (never mind the fact that Facebook also collects and sells your personal info to corporations – but that’s a whole ‘nother subject).
The censorship of alternative news by Facebook has been well-documented by Natural News and other alternative media sources.
As reported by Hang The Bankers:
“[I]t must be emphasized that Facebook has an unfortunate history of suppressing political speech or even speech about inalienable human rights.
“In late 2012, for example, Facebook suspended at least 20 accounts operated by individuals in alternative media during a 24 hour period, claiming they violated ‘Facebook policies,’ not long after threatening to close the official Alex Jones account over an image of Osama Bin Laden with the words ‘Al-CIA-da’ written underneath. …
“It would certainly appear that Facebook is committed to silencing those who are not supportive of an unrestrained government in partnership with establishment corporations such as itself.”
There are innumerable other examples of Facebook censorship, as a quick Google search will confirm.
But, not only does Facebook routinely engage in censorship, it also generates its own propaganda campaigns, as a recent Gizmodo article revealed:
“When users weren’t reading stories that management viewed as important, several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending news feed anyway. Several former curators described using something called an ‘injection tool’ to push topics into the trending module that weren’t organically being shared or discussed enough to warrant inclusion—putting the headlines in front of thousands of readers rather than allowing stories to surface on their own. In some cases, after a topic was injected, it actually became the number one trending news topic on Facebook.”
‘Wikipedia is not our friend’
Since Facebook is a for-profit entity, perhaps it’s not too surprising to learn that its practices are less than objective or democratic. But what about Wikipedia – a supposedlynon-profit organization that many users rely on for theoretically unbiased information on an immense variety of subjects?
Wikipedia touts itself as a “free-of-cost encyclopedia with its articles being free-content; those who use Wikipedia can mostly edit any article accessible.”
But even Wikipedia itself admits that it “has been subjectively criticized; claims show that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, presents a mixture of ‘truths, half truths, and some falsehoods’, and controversial topics could be manipulated and/or spun.”
That rather surprising admission is actually something of an understatement, according to recent revelations.
From an eye-opening article (which I recommend reading in its entirety), penned by consumer advocate Tim Bolen at Bolen Report:
“There is no question that Wikipedia is not our friend. It is obviously ‘Skeptic’ Grand Dragon Home Base. Sifting though [sic] Wikipedia articles on health care is like being forced to listen to convicted pedophiles talk about their ‘conquests.’ …
“Frankly, I think it is time to just shut it down. Wikipedia has failed. It is simply a propaganda tool for the unwashed. …
“Wikipedia is strictly a PR firm, operating a PsyOps black operation against those that economically compete against Wikipedia’s ‘contributor’s’ interests.”
Glaring examples of Wikipedia’s caving to corporate interests, particularly those of Big Pharma, can be found in numerous Natural News articles. Here is an excerpt from one of them:
“Natural News has now learned from trusted sources that Wikipedia’s incredibly biased entry on VAXXED was written by none other than pro-vaccine shill Dr. David Gorski, notorious for his relentless and callous attacks on vaccine skeptics, alternative medicine, and its supporters.”
I highly recommend that readers investigate the matter for themselves before ever using Facebook or Wikipedia again.
Free lunch, anyone?