Hong Kong Intelligence Report #29 Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior of Nazi-FACEBOOK Censorship
Updated: Aug 1, 2021
#HongKong #Intelligence #Report #香港情報分析 #OSINT
One Country’s Internet, Information Space is Part of National Sovereignty
National sovereignty on information space is part of national territories however when foreign tech giants, especially the US SNS companies like Facebook's control of other countries’ inner information space is a kind of foreign invasion and occupation. It will only result US-centrist mass purge, oppression, defamation and disinformation ops against their so called ‘adversaries.’ We already witnessed mass purge, violations of freedom of expression, black ops, double standards, politically biased censorship on the Nazi Facebook and on other US tech giants which are in systematic coordination with US intelligence agencies.
National sovereignty on mass communication space must not be politically infiltrated or monopolized by foreign companies as long as US tech giants are engaging in its own US global imperialist endeavours and silencing different voices of different countries. It’s totally unacceptable, outrageous and global opposition against US imperialism and its US tech giants will be more radicalized and continue until the final defeat of the US empire. Thus, every country should develop their own versions of Facebook and Yahoo to protect their own information space as part of national sovereignty. Our Facebook mistakenly regards itself as internet super sovereign state which can own and control other sovereign states’ internet, information space as its own US-Facebook territories.
Misdeeds of Facebook on the Concept of Internet / Information Space and National Sovereignty
Facebook’s double standards, manipulation of US and foreign public opinions and mass purge of different voices by various systematic oppressions are good examples and proofs of its self-contradictions. When Facebook and Twitter did mass purge on August 19, 2019 amidst of the still ongoing anti-extradition bill color revolution, Beijing accurately criticized the politically biased US imperialist offense on SNS internet space.
“Twitter and Facebook abused the freedom of the press when they chose to crack down on accounts originating from the Chinese mainland revealing violence in protests in Hong Kong,” a Wednesday op-ed in the state-run People’s Daily reads, claiming that the U.S. State Department uses Twitter as a tool to “interfere in other countries’ internal affairs.” (1)
READ MORE:
China Hits Back After Twitter and Facebook Block Pro-Beijing Content
https://fortune.com/2019/08/22/china-twitter-facebook-hong-kong-accounts/
Both US and China have their own developed SNS companies and engaging in the similar well known censorship activities. This incident indicated that China clearly knows that the question of ‘who decides it?’ is still unsolvable while we lack genuinely independent third party or legitimate authority to fully regulate this information space within one country to protect its citizens from any US tech companies’ manipulation, censorship and monopoly. As the result, those tech giants are acting like SNS police themselves against domestic and even foreign users.
In other words, it is an inevitable nature of its one-sidedness and unfairness of Facebook censorship. Facebook became a police state in internet which including foreign states outside of Silicon Valley. Undoubtedly, it’s a menace to anyone who opposes their US domestic and foreign policy that Facebook promotes.
This problematic nature is undeniable even for one of their pro US foreign policy partners in Western mainstream media, Forbes:
As with Twitter, Facebook specifically claimed the activity was state-sponsored. "Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities," the platform said in its disclosure, "our investigation found links to individuals associated with the Chinese government."
Credit where it's due. This is an exceptionally fast and forthright response from both platforms and should be applauded as such.
In my initial report, I suggested that what Twitter (and Facebook) does next will be watched with interest—it is clear that promoted tweets from state media outlets at times of popular unrest go to the very heart of the free speech versus propaganda debate. Well, they have acted and the question has been answered.
The other question I raised is the one of "who decides?" Does it fall to the social media platforms themselves to set the rules, or is some form of regulation? (2)
READ MORE:
Facebook And Twitter Uncover Huge Chinese State Operation Targeting Hong Kong Protesters
What we should understand here is how they justify their politically biased censorship. What kinds of narratives and terms they use to deceive public from realizing their biased censorship?
Facebook’s public figure Nathaniel Gleicher, Head of Cybersecurity Policy is at least responsible for all of this. He himself gave us the answer however no victims referred to his remarks. Nathaniel Gleicher used to be a member of the notorious NSC and neoconservative think tank CSIS. Thus undoubtedly his political stance is pro US imperialism.
His LinkedIn page shows his career was quite frequently separated by job transfers as an expert.
Senior Associate, Strategic Technologies Program Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jan 2016 – Present · 4 years 4 months
Director for Cybersecurity Policy
National Security Council, The White House
May 2013 – Oct 2015, 2 years 6 months Washington, DC
(3)
Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior
What we can see from his statements?
Many excuses and claims commonly used in its lazy templates without actual proofs to back those claims :
A number of deceptive tactics (fake accounts; disseminate their content; drive people to off-platform news sites; the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities; links to individuals associated with the Chinese government; we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people)
‘We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted.’ (4)
READ MORE:
Removing Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior From China
https://about.fb.com/news/2019/08/removing-cib-china/
The main question unsolved in his two major articles on mass purges in 2019 is that there is no proof of fake account false flag claims which commonly used by trolls and US backed plants in every country. Nathaniel Gleicher as a very ambitious law and computer student, his articles did not provide any proof to back his templated claims. His screenshot posts from those deleted pages shown are generally just political opposition to US foreign interventions in their own countries. Nathaniel Gleicher himself wrote that ‘not the content they posted’ yet he only showed the content as if proofs of the false claims. It has nothing to do with any legitimate evidence of being fake accounts.
‘Fake account’ accusation (Inauthenticity false accusation) is one of major Facebook censorship tools and terms to false flag political opponents without any evidence provided.
Facebook Censorship Template for Press
Title: Removing Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior From ___
Today, we removed _ Pages, _ Groups and _ Facebook accounts involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior as part of a small network that originated in ___ and focused on ___. The individuals behind this campaign engaged in a number of deceptive tactics, including the use of fake accounts — some of which had been already disabled by our automated systems — to manage Pages posing as news organizations, post in Groups, disseminate their content, and also drive people to off-platform news sites. They frequently posted about local political news and issues including topics like ___ in ___. Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found links to individuals associated with the ___ government.
Presence on Facebook: _ Facebook accounts, _ Pages and _ Groups.
Followers: About _ accounts followed one or more of these Pages and about _ accounts joined at least one of these Groups.
Based on a tip shared by Twitter about activity they found on their platform, we conducted an internal investigation into suspected coordinated inauthentic behavior in the region and identified this activity. We will continue monitoring and will take action if we find additional violations. We’ve shared our analysis with law enforcement and industry partners.
We’re constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people. We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted.
As with all of these takedowns, the people behind this activity coordinated with one another and used fake accounts to misrepresent themselves, and that was the basis for our action.
We are making progress rooting out this abuse, but as we’ve said before, it’s an ongoing challenge. We’re committed to continually improving to stay ahead. That means building better technology, hiring more people and working more closely with law enforcement, security experts and other companies.
Below is a sample of the content posted by some of these Pages:
Samples
English Captions attached.
(5)
This template was used on the mass purge of Chinese accounts on August 19, 2019. The point is that the inauthentic use of fake accounts is actually done by Facebook censorship team themselves. I can tell their own inauthentic use of internet space and real fake account ops.
Before this anti-China mass purge and black operation, the same guy Nathaniel Gleicher did the exactly the same on July 25, 2019 and used first time the same template to justify the unjustifiable oppression against Thai, Russian, Ukrainian and Honduran users who just oppose US foreign interventions in their home lands,
Template (against Thailand, Russia, Ukraine and Honduras)
Title: Removing Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior in ______, ______, ______and _______
In the past week, we removed multiple Pages, Groups and accounts that were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior on Facebook and Instagram. We found four separate, unconnected operations that originated in______, ______, ______ and ______. We didn’t find any links between the campaigns we’ve removed, but all created networks of accounts to mislead others about who they were and what they were doing.
We’re constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people. We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted. In each of these cases, the people behind this activity coordinated with one another and used fake accounts to misrepresent themselves, and that was the basis for our action. We have shared information about our analysis with law enforcement, policymakers and industry partners.
We are making progress rooting out this abuse, but as we’ve said before, it’s an ongoing challenge. We’re committed to continually improving to stay ahead. That means building better technology, hiring more people and working more closely with law enforcement, security experts and other companies.