Some research on the enemy…
Some research on the enemy…
Hosting and promoting racist violence for years, the white supremacist oldest site on the Internet got shot down last night.
The invisible war against hate continues.
Expect the KKKChumph and Jefferson Davis Sessions to jump on their swaback white nags at any minute to ride to the rescue.
Liberal activists have been filing complaints against hate websites — and they’ve been working
Stormfront, the oldest neo-Nazi and white nationalist website on the English-speaking internet, has now become the second far right website to be blocked by its web domain registrar, Network Solutions, from being accessed by the public.
The action appears to have been taken at the instigation of the left-leaning Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under its Stop Hate Project which lodged a complaint about Stormfront to Network Solutions on Aug. 22.
According to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the organization which administers all web domains, Network Solutions blocked Stormfront’s domain on Friday at 1:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The site’s registration has been put on hold by the registrar. According to ICANN, this hold status is “uncommon” and “is usually enacted during legal disputes, non-payment, or when your domain is subject to deletion.”
In operation since 1990 as a bulletin board and 1995 as a web forum, Stormfront claimed to have over 300,000 registered members. The site’s owner, former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black, is officially opposed to violence, but several of his members have been linked to various murders.
Stormfront has become the second major neo-Nazi website to find itself blocked from its web domain in recent weeks after a-fascist allegedly struck and killed a counter-protester at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Daily Stormer, the most popular neo-Nazi website, has found itself banned by multiple registrars including GoDaddy, Google, Namecheap as well as by the network security service Cloudflare.
Andrew Anglin, the owner of the Daily Stormer, expressed alarm on his site at what he said was a deliberate and large-scale effort to censor right-wing extremist websites via domain seizure:
We are under a full-on assault.
And there is an intelligence operation being run on us. We need to be aware of this, we need to act with knowledge of it, and we need to understand that the number one thing that they want to do is turn us against one another.
Sites are now going to start dropping like flies. And this is because there wasn’t a significant enough rally around Daily Stormer. I think people within the movement did rally around us, but others within the larger right-wing did not. . . .
I think some people are maybe in denial about what is happening right now. This is a huge move to simply silence us, completely. Hopefully, we can get enough attention that we can force the government to intervene, and begin regulating ICANN like they did before Obama gave it away in October of last year.
The practice of blocking white nationalist domain names has come under attack from some free speech advocates as well.
“Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected,” three executives with the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote in an Aug. 17 essay. “We do it because we believe that no one — not the government and not private commercial enterprises — should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t.”
Funding for Richard Spencer, David Duke and other white-racist hate groups has traditionally been scarce. Your typical white-wing racist is no Rocket Scientist. The Internet provides the alt-right not only the opportunity to spread their message – but through advertising add-ons to make money with each click. Pull up a racist video, and get an Amazon ad in the margins. For each view the advertiser pays Google, who pays the bigots. Google and companies like Facebook have long ignored the content and environment of their streams, allowing hate groups and trolls to fester while taking a position that it is someone else’s fault.
Looks like Google is trying that again.
Perhaps one of the reasons Google has little sensitivity to the issue, is hey hire so few minorities?
Google has been thrown onto the back foot by a mass withdrawal of advertising from YouTube, triggered by concerns about extremist content.
Having apparently failed to realise until now that their ads have been showing up next to hate speech and homophobia, corporations and media agencies have said they plan to pull their entire ad spend from the Google-owned company.
One of the latest to do so is the UK arm of France’s Havas, one of the world’s largest ad agencies, whose clients include Domino’s, Emirates and the BBC. It has pulled all its UK advertising – currently worth around £175 million ($217 million) a year: “@Havas_MGUK has made decision to protect brands it represents in absence of reassurance or change of policy from YT,” tweets CEO and country manager Paul Frampton Calero.
Corporations including the BBC and the Guardian have also pulled their ads, along with L’Oreal, Honda and major supermarket chain Sainsbury’s; and GroupM, part of ad giant WPP, has hinted it could follow suit.
The row really began with a report from The Times that revealed that extremist YouTube videos from the likes of American white nationalist David Duke and Holocaust-denying fundamentalist pastor Steven Anderson were carrying mainstream ads.
The ads are placed by the company’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange Service, AdX, which uses programmatic trading to allocate ads automatically. These ads have been making money for the extremists – around £6 per 1,000 pageviews – as well as for Google itself.
As the row rumbled on, the company was called for talks at the UK Cabinet Office this afternoon, with Home Affairs Select Committee chairwoman Yvette Cooper describing its activities as ‘extremely troubling’.
“It is inexplicable to us that Google can move very fast to remove material from YouTube when it is found to be copyrighted, but that the same prompt action is not taken when the material involves proscribed organisations and hateful and illegal content,” she wrote in a letter to the company.
“The Committee expects to hear from you on how you are using some of YouTube’s very significant revenue to put this problem right by devoting sufficient resources to ensure that vile and illegal material is removed proactively from your platforms, and that neither you nor those that create these videos profit from hatred.”
The government has now pulled all advertising, including military recruitment and blood donation campaigns – and demanded to know whether Google will give it a refund.
“It is totally unacceptable that taxpayer-funded advertising has appeared next to inappropriate internet content – and that message was conveyed very clearly to Google,” a government spokesperson tells Forbes.
“The Cabinet Office has told Google it expects to see a plan and a timetable for work to improve protection of government adverts to ensure this doesn’t happen again. YouTube advertising remains on hold while that work is carried out.”
And, says the spokesperson, Google will be called back next week for a follow-up meeting at which it will be expected to promise further action.
Google is, well, practically grovelling.
“We’ve heard from our advertisers and agencies loud and clear that we can provide simpler, more robust ways to stop their ads from showing against controversial content,” says UK managing director Ronan Harris in a statement.
“While we have a wide variety of tools to give advertisers and agencies control over where their ads appear, such as topic exclusions and site category exclusions, we can do a better job of addressing the small number of inappropriately monetized videos and content.”
He adds that the company is now reviewing its policies and plans to make changes.
However, the cynic might note that these changes will, he says, ‘give brands more control over where their ads appear across YouTube and the Google Display Network’. In other words, they will put the ball in the advertisers’ court.
Next time this sort of thing happens – and it will – Google will be able to pass on at least some of the blame.
FOX News and other right wing racist media now use fake news propaganda to incite neo-Nazi and white supremacist thugs into violence against minority individuals and families.
Who is going to hold the scumbags responsible? They are responsible for thousands of hate crimes since the election.
Perhaps some folks need to consider how to make fake right wing news a little less profitable…
The school says it absolutely did not cancel the production because of religious complaints.
A Jewish family in Pennsylvania has pulled their child out of school and left town after media outlets across the country ran stories blaming them for the cancellation of a Christmas play.
Local station WHTM reported last week that Centerville Elementary School in Lancaster decided not to put on its production of “A Christmas Carol” this year after two parents complained to the them about the famous line, “God bless us, everyone.” The school had been doing the play for more than 40 years.
WHTM said school officials told the news outlet the play was not cancelled because of complaints about that line, although “many parents” believed it was so.
The Fox News commentary piece framed the controversy as part of the so-called “War on Christmas.” “[T]his year, I’m afraid Tiny Tim’s goose has been cooked by the Ghost of Christmas Intolerance,” the article stated.
But the Hempfield School District has vehemently denied this account of why it cancelled the play, and a Jewish family that says it’s being blamed for the controversy is so afraid for their safety they have left the area, at least temporarily. The earlier articles did not identify the parents being blamed as Jewish or identify them by name.
The parents of a fifth grader in the district told LancasterOnline that they never asked for the play to be cancelled or complained about it; they simply asked for their child to be excused and were told that was fine.
But they said since the school announced the cancellation last month, classmates had harassed their child. And after the story broke nationally, the school said it received at least 200 phone calls and emails about the play.
The family said they were disturbed by some of the comments on the conservative outlets’ stories ― including one on the Breitbart story asking for information about the family’s address.
And after a fake news story created an uproar over a pizza place in Washington, D.C. ― which ultimately resulted in a man coming in with an assault rifle to “self-investigate” whether there truly was a child sex ring there ― the family said they didn’t want to risk their safety by sticking around, although they were hoping to be able to come back.
“There’s no way we’re going to take a chance after the pizza incident,” said the parents, who were not named by LancasterOnline.
The Hempfield School District has backed up the family’s account. Officials have posted an FAQ sheet on its website and said the play was absolutely not cancelled because of complaints over the “God bless us” line. Instead, they dropped it because it consumed too much instructional time in the classroom. From the FAQ sheet:
No surprise here…
America is getting angrier, according to one watchdog.
For the first time in five years, the number of hate groups in the United States rose in 2015, according to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a legal and advocacy organization known among other things for monitoring extremist activity.
The number of such groups spiked 14 percent in 2015, a year characterized by levels of polarization and anger perhaps unmatched since the political turmoil of 1968, the center said in the report on hate and extremism released exclusively to The Washington Post on Wednesday.
Swelling numbers of Ku Klux Klan chapters and black separatist groups drove last year’s surge, though organizations classified as anti-gay, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim saw small increases, too.
“It was a year marked by very high levels of political violence, enormous rage in the electorate and a real significant growth in hate groups,” said Mark Potok, author of the report.
The center credits a number of factors for inciting that anger, including shifting demographics that largely favor non-whites; immigration; legalized same-sex marriage; the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement; and the all-too-real atrocities carried out by Islamic terrorists.
A creeping rhetoric of intolerance among politicians helped to normalize hate, the center argued. And while it singled out other presidential contenders, too, the center—which conservatives criticize for casting too wide a net—stated that Donald Trump had “electrified the radical right.”
The “no-fly-list” was created by the Bushit Administration. It was at least in part a political tool to punish those who spoke out against the illegitimate presidency, illegitimate invasion of Iraq, and political suppression of the Bushit regime. The real reason Republicans won’t support a ban on guns to people on this list has to do with the possibility it may be used on their provocateurs and Domestic Terrorists..
“If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun.”
President Barack Obama honored the victims of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, that left 14 dead and 21 injured and renewed his call for tougher gun restrictions in his weekly address on Saturday.
Obama has called for similar action many times before during his presidency, but Congress has failed to act. On Thursday, Congress failed yet again, when an amendment that would have required background checks for all gun sales did not pass the Senate.
“This tragedy reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power, together, to keep our communities safe,” Obama said in his address. “We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons — weapons of war — to kill as many people as they could. It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.”
Obama, who has said that failing to pass comprehensive gun reform is the “greatest frustration” of his time in office, said it was ridiculous that people on a no-fly list in the United States could legally purchase a gun.
“That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now,” he said. “We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but — at a bare minimum — we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.”
Two of the assault-style rifles used in the San Bernardino attack were bought legally in California because of a loophole in state law.
Trolls and hate. The Internet was conceptualized as an open system across which to share ideas and scientific concepts. Unfortunately none of the founders, having grown up largely in the shielded world of academia had any concept of the nefarious uses to which the tool could be put by hate groups, criminals, and the mentally and socially imbalanced.
The Internet, besides enabling new types of crime, international crime, and deviant pornography such as kiddie porn has also enabled hate mongers through the anonymous nature of the system to spew their vile hatred and to recruit weak minded children like Dylaan Root, who got much of his racial animosity for the Council of Conservative Citizens Web site(s).
The killer in the recent Oregon Colleges mass shooting has been tied to antisocial hubs (4Chan), as well as white supremacist and chrisitian Identity hate groups on the conservative Web.
So it isn’t just the “white Sale” on guns driving the carnage – it is the commercial sale of, and manufacture of hate and disenfranchisement for political and power purposes.
We can stop this, but to do so requires a large group of people to first take down the entry point to the Hate Groups. That typically is the fact free and often racist world of conservative white identity politics. It includes going at sites like The National Review which publishes articles of racial hate mongering by such folks as Heather McDonald, and Michelle Malkin. Both of whom frequently are published or have contracts with VDare, a white supremacist site which uses conservative racist authors as a entre’ into the harcore racism of their staff. The American Spectator, the International Business Daily, the NRO, the Federalist, Townhall, and the Wall Street Journal all serve as entries into the world of hardore racism through the introduction to racist “theology”. Many of the sites actively ban liberal, or non-racist posters through cutting them off from posting to assure no level of sanity, or truth interferes with their incited hate fests. Indeed, many conservative sites run like rats when someone shines the light.
Got to hit them in their rat holes. If we can force the entry points to see the light – then it takes away the respectability of the supremacist sites and their ability to recruit little tow headed trolls and murders like Root.
In an ideal world, the Internet would be a place of inclusivity and democracy. Instead, it’s just the opposite.
A new research study led by Jason Chan, Ph.D., shows a positive relationship between broadband Internet access and incidence of hate crimes. Specifically,race-driven hate crimes committed by individuals, rather than those committed in groups, increased.
Chan, an Assistant Professor of Information and Decision Science for the Carson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, discovered the correlation using official FBI data on hate crime incidents, compared to that of broadband provider access taken from FCC documents. Between 2001 and 2008, access to just one broadband ISP showed a 20 percent rise in hate crimes, particularly in areas of high racial tension.
“We see this from two different perspectives,” Chan tells The Daily Beast, “the consumers of hate content, and the producers of it. Hate content refers to internet posts that bring about skewed ideologies and advocating for a supremacy of one race over other races.”
The first perspective has to do with selective exposure, wherein readers intentionally seek out information that galvanizes their fringe beliefs.
“When readers go online,” Chan says, “there is a specialization of interest. This magnifies or amplifies the messages posted on it. This is contrary to what we believe. We believe, instead of making things more narrow, the Internet should make things more inclusive and democratic. However, people tend to search out things relevant to existing interests, which amplifies such narrow thoughts.”
Chan says developing online recruitment techniques for hate peddlers contributes to this rise as well.
“Content providers,” Chan says, “have changed the way in which they have to execute their propaganda. They use a strategy known as leaderless resistance. Whenever they put up propaganda to have content to provide the motivation, encouragement, and justification to people on the edge. It gives them reason why they should be outside normal thought.”
After yet another mass shooting, this one leaving 10 people dead at Umpqua Community College last Thursday, digital traces of the lone gunman in the attack are again left to the examination of law enforcement officials and reporters. Just hours after the shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, was killed in a standoff with police, several online accounts tracing back to Mercer expressed hate for organized religion. What’s worse, one witness said Mercer forced his victims to state their beliefs before heartlessly killing them, specifically targeting Christians.
It’s a pattern becoming tragically more common: a mass shooting takes place, and we later discover how blatantly the perpetrators expressed hate for their victims online. In this case, clear connections emerge between recent shootings: Mercer referred, in one post, to Vester Flanagan, the man who killed two people on live television in Virginia in August. Flanagan himself made specific reference to Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who gunned down nine inside a Charleston, North Carolina church in June.
“In Dylann’s case,” Chan says, “he happened to chance upon one of these hate sites. And slowly but surely he was convinced. Through half truths and misrepresented facts, he believed individuals of his race should be doing something to serve justice back to the people. In some cases this hate content provides instructions. This type of grooming process takes time. But people see more, there are more opticals, one event tips them over and they commit the crime.”
The paper, titled “The Internet and Racial Hate Crime: Offline Spillovers from Online Access,” published in the forthcoming issue of MIS Quarterly, also offers solutions to combat this online surge. The paper suggests that, instead of engaging in a technological race with producers of hate content, policy should be implemented to educate youth on digital media, racial and social justice, stereotypical messages, and how to interpret multiple meanings.
Another plan of attack would increase the amount of anti- hate content on the net. But even an attempt to right the skewed beliefs presented across the web would be somewhat futile.Between 2001 and 2008, access to just one broadband ISP showed a 20 percent rise in hate crimes, particularly in areas of high racial tension.
“The chance of such content being seen by the one who needs to see it are small,” says Chan. “And technological advances are moving so quickly we believe there could be newer assets in searching for digital traces of those who are likely, or at risk, of committing crimes. Such lone wolfs, before they do something, we can see some patterns.”
Unfortunately, Chan says, problems of free speech get wrapped up in who posts what online.
“This can reach a certain threshold. We’d need to tell apart those who intend to commit hate crimes and those who have those ideologies but stay within the law.”