This & That

Hillary Clinton Wants Increased Censorship and Control Over U.S. Social Media Platforms

First, we need background context.

The latter part of 2010 through 2011 was a key period in the Obama presidency.  On the cusp of a midterm election shellacking, with domestic focus on the issues around Obamacare, the Obama team and Hillary Clinton team were also intent on fueling the “Arab Spring” and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt.

With background research provided by the U.S. State Dept and Rivkin Project in France, a petri-dish dish experiment to see if French culture could be diluted and enhanced with “brotherhood-style” multiculturalism, Hillary and Barry then fine-tuned the mechanics.  Secretary Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice quickly convinced President Obama to help leverage his Silicon Valley allies.

As a workaround to stop Hosni Mubarak and Muamar Kaddafi from controlling information flow and putting down the protests, the social media platforms of Twitter and Facebook were enlisted to assist the Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya respectively.  The U.S-designated Brotherhood partners were given support, communication and influence through Twitter and Facebook to organize their protests.

In 2011 the official merge of U.S. social media platforms to assist the U.S. State Dept foreign policy agenda was created.  In many ways this merge was the inflection point for government to begin controlling social media, Libya and Egypt were the BETA test for what would later be deployed domestically.

Seeing the success and influence of the Arab Spring experiment, in 2012 President Obama signed HR-5736, with an addition to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.  The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, contained within the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, eased some restrictions so that media produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media and intended for foreign audiences could be distributed domestically upon request, according to its text. Prior to its passage, the propaganda content was banned from being disseminated in America.

This move made it possible to deploy the same social media tactics domestically.  Within the Twitter Files, you will note how 2012 and 2013 are key periods when the Dept of Homeland Security began exploring their new influence partnership in social media.   For the next ten years, that partnership created various sub-set silos within the government.

DHS, FBI and Intelligence Community offices now had direct communication lines into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Google, WhatsAp, etc.  However, Telegram and TikTok were not around and not part of the partnership.  What two platforms have been targeted recently?… Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

The Arab Spring was the BETA test, the proving ground.  Then they went domestic with the same operation.

The results of the domestic operation, the public-private partnership, later became stunningly visible in the COVID-19 censorship operation as well as the government influence operation in the aftermath of the 2020 election.  However, most recently there has been some pushback from both originating entities; Twitter – via Elon Musk, and Facebook – via a regretful Mark Zuckerberg.

Remember, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when this entire system was originating.

This is the fullest context to absorb the video soundbite below.  Hillary Clinton is upset that control over social media platforms is slipping away. Hillary Clinton now saying, ‘we lose total control’ if we don’t ‘Moderate & Monitor’ social media more. WATCH:

.

Hillary Clinton is frustrated because from her perspective so much progress had been made.

Now, suddenly, with increased scrutiny and a more awakened public seeing the consequences, it is harder for the government to execute their domestic propaganda operations.  Even the labeling and categorization through “mis-dis-mal-information” does not appear to be working.

Within the recent WEF discussion, Secretary Kerry outlines how freedom of speech is a ‘threat to the global democracy‘ because the governing officials have a difficult time controlling information.  Kerry goes on to posit how the next administration, presumably in his hope Kamala Harris, will forcefully structure all the tools of government to stop Americans from using the first amendment to freely speak about issues.

Governing is too challenging, according to Kerry, when the government cannot stop people from seeking and discovering information that is against their interests.  Effective governing required compliant adherence to a singular ideology.  Against the backdrop of COVID-19 and a host of similarly related government narratives, if people are free to find alternative information and think for themselves, they become increasingly more difficult to control.  Yes, this is said quite openly.  This is the mindset of those in power.  WATCH: 

.

On a positive note, millions of people now accurately understand why it is so important to refute the terms “mis-dis-mal information.”  When CTH initially warned about the labeling, most people did not understand; however, as the consequences begin to surface, I would argue almost a majority of people now understand.

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… 

The absence of control creates fear.