Censorship
Censorship
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[1]
Contents
15 February 2020
But we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.
Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.
That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation.
Source: WHO Director-General's speech at the Munich Security Conference, 15 February 2020
(Emphasis added)
Global censorship was initiated before the pandemic was declared.
I will re-state that:- the World Health Organization co-opted the social media companies and search engine providers (to control a supposed infodemic) on 11 February 2020.
The COVID-19 pandemic was declared on 11 March 2020[2] - one month later.
Grant
August 2021
Information Management, Infodemiology, or Censorship?
Soon after the world started getting used to the terms coronavirus and COVID-19, WHO coined another word: "infodemic" — an overabundance of information and the rapid spread of misleading or fabricated news, images, and videos. Like the virus, it is highly contagious and grows exponentially. It also complicates COVID-19 pandemic response efforts.
“We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.” [3]
After identifying an infodemic in parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO developed another new term: infodemiology - the science of infodemics. To increase credibility in this new field of research, the WHO convened the 1st WHO Infodemiology Conference 30 June – 16 July 2020. See the article Infodemiology.
In August 2020 WHO published a webpage Immunizing the public against misinformation[3]
The trend is clear - the World Health Organization and member countries are censoring cyber-space in the name of public health. Instead of a focus on physical diseases and practical health issues like water quality and hygeine the WHO defined the spread of misinformation with a medical term - epidemic - and created a new disease - an infodemic - for which a new faculty of science is required - infodemiology, and we now need to be immunized against it. Is this within the WHO's charter? An excerpt from the Constitution of the WHO is attached at Censorship/Folio 1 so you can search it for yourself...
Steps Toward Censorship
Looking back on what has happened since February 2020 the following steps can be identified:-
- Identify the existence of an infodemic
- Engage Social Media platforms to regulate mis- and dis-information spread by their users
- Engage search engine companies - Google, Bing etc. - to limit the spread of mis- and dis-information
- Develop a narrative and a set of 'facts' which can be used to determine whether information meets the criteria for mis- and dis-information
- Engage Fact-Check organizations to fact-check popular internet content and rate it
- Encourage the mainstream media to formulate a self-regulated standard for reliable, fact-checked news
- Identify the persons or organizations responsible for most of the mis-information and ensure they are actively targeted and de-platformed
- Host a conference on Infodemiology so technocrats can boost their egos by developing new ways to monitor and combat the infodemic
- Gain support and consensus from member countries for all of these initiatives and a commitment to act accordingly
- Develop and promote an AI-Supported means to monitor internet traffic, called EARS.
Maybe more has happened 'behind the scenes'. But is the World Health Organization in an ethical or moral position to act as the leader in combating the spread of misinformation?
Is WHO a reliable source of quality information?
What follows is a list of statements or actions which, if true, would suggest that the WHO cannot rightfully occupy moral high ground. References and links will be added soon.
- The WHO was slow to declare COVID-19 a pandemic.
- The WHO was slow to admit that person-to-person transmission of the novel coronavirus was likely to have occurred.
- The WHO praised China for their efforts in containing the outbreak yet China allowed thousands of people to leave Wuhan on International flights.
- The WHO gave support to the theory that the virus emerged in a wet market in Hubei and deflected attention away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- The WHO withdrew support for trials on the efficacy of low-cost, readily available and safe medications and member countries prevented their doctors and hospitals from using these drugs with a tragic consequence - thousands of people infected by SARS-CoV-2 suffered and died unnecessarily.
- The WHO continues to promote experimental vaccines as the only way out of the pandemic.
When did the 'infodemic' start?
In February 2020 when the 'infodemic' was identified it probably didn't exist. Looking back, there was a lot of interest in what was happening in China during January and February 2020, but very little 'conspiracy-based' content. The real 'infodemic' occurred after the World Health Organization stopped trials of effective treatments. That was after President Trump admitted to taking one of the drugs they sought to discredit; and America's Frontline Doctors hit the news and were discredited; and then people started to 'smell a rat'. Something seemed wrong but no-one really knew what it was or where it was coming from. That unresolved question opened the way for many conspiracy theories and wacky ideas. Basically, the WHO's actions led to the 'infodemic' as a reaction. And when people could not believe the World Health Organization and lost trust government departments and agencies, mis-information thrived.
What information is being censored?
Of all the wacky ideas on how to beat covid, perhaps the saddest was the use of cow dung in the state of Gujarat in western India. We can be reasonably certain that AI-supported internet monitoring is not targeting these desperate people.
Instead, think of the most educated people who want answers and seek solutions and want to make informed decisions and to know the truth. The information they seek is what is being censored.
Two mantras are oft repeated: vaccines are safe and the only effective way to combat covid; and the benefits outweigh the risks. Any information contrary to these fundamental and inviolate self-evident 'truths' must be false and should therefore not be allowed to be shared on social media, will not be broadcast by mainstream media, and any person who publicly verbalises these ideas will be shamed, ridiculed, de-platformed and cancelled.
That is an assault on free speech.
EARS and Function Creep
EARS is an acronym for Early AI-supported Response with Social Listening. This is a pilot program to monitor 'COVID-19 online conversations in 25 countries' (as at August 2021) and use AI technologies to identify current and emerging trends.
EARS is publicly accessible online at: Early AI-supported Response with Social Listening (EARS) https://www.who-ears.com
Function creep occurs when information that has been collected for a stated purpose is used for a different purpose. An example occurred in Western Australia during 2021. People there are encouraged to use a phone App which recognises a Q-code at shops and other locations for the purpose of making the task of contact tracing easier if an outbreak occurs. The police legally obtained the data and used it to confirm that a crime suspect had been in a certain place at a particular time. The crime was an assassination in a public place by a sniper so it would have been a difficult crime to solve, but that isn't the point. The data was not collected so that police could track criminals. That is function creep. The legal loophole which allowed it has since been closed and it won't happen again.
Now think about the EARS project. The purpose of the data mining is to identify trends which may have negative consequences for public health. That is as worthy as identifying an assassin. BUT the same technology can - and will - be used for more than that. The WHO has started something which governments will use against their citizens; the function of EARS and its' equivalents will creep away from public health into a tool for surveillance.
References
- ↑ Wikipedia Censorship Retrieved 1 August 2021
- ↑ WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020
https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
This address included the statement: "We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic." - ↑ 3.0 3.1 World Health Organization Immunizing the public against misinformation 25 August 2020
