© 2017 Ignita Veritas University (IVU). All International Rights Reserved.

Please distribute this report freely, far and wide, without modification.

How to Break Free From Internet Censorship Now
Solutions to Continue Independent Research of Factual Truth

PLEASE HELP DISTRIBUTE THIS REPORT NOW – BEFORE IT IS CENSORED

Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes
J.D., Ph.D., J.S.D., J.C.D.
International Barrister, Judge Advocate, Privy Councillor
(as Editor of the Anti-Censorship Project for the think tank)

The Council on Alternative Policy Studies (CAPS) is the autonomous public policy Think Tank of the inter-governmental
organization (IGO) Ignita Veritas University (IVU). It has special mandate as a Think Tank assisting governments for
human rights under UN Right to Protect Human Rights (Article 5), UN Economic Social & Cultural Rights providing
“international assistance” (Article 2) through “international cooperation” (Article 15.4) for “international action” by
“technical assistance” (Article 23). It holds authorities to develop public policy promoting human rights under UN
Right to Protect Human Rights, including by scholarship and publication (Article 6), and direct “participation in public
affairs” (Article 8). Its statutory official powers and authorities in public policy as codified in conventional
international law are fully binding upon all countries regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Article 38).

Contents: Topic Sections in this Report

Urgent Need for and Purpose of this Report
Proof that Mass Censorship has Already Begun
Exposing the Self-Appointed Arbiters of “Truth”
Censorship as Major Violations of Human Rights
Proof of State-Sponsored Agenda of Censorship
Censorship as an Assault Against Civilization
Search Engine Anti-Censorship Alternatives
Video Service Anti-Censorship Alternatives
Social Media Anti-Censorship Alternatives
Free Use of Mobile Anti-Censorship Services
Independent News Uncensored Alternatives

1
Urgent Need for and Purpose of this Report

Right now, in the year 2017, humanity is directly confronted with the oppressive and
rapidly expanding scourge of mass censorship, which was already quietly rolled out in
full force by globalist mega-corporations, as de facto monopolies in the role of quasi-
public utilities implementing state-sponsored programs. That rollout was completed
while the mainstream establishment media networks aided and abetted this offense,
by keeping the general public distracted with superficial stories of artificially divisive
politics, while suppressing any mention of the fact of censorship.

Proof of Real Censorship Now – This report presents verifiable facts proving the
reality of full-scale censorship which is already in force, for the public to be informed
of this unprecedented historic violation of their collective human rights. It provides
proper source reference citations to credible and reputable sources meeting
international academic standards, making this material practically useful and suitable
for official and institutional use.

Without this presentation proving censorship, most people would not believe it,
precisely because that same censorship in collusion with mainstream media willfully
prevents them from knowing about this massive event.

New Tools to Break Free Now – Even more importantly, this report provides solutions,
featuring sections presenting the most effective uncensored, independent and
alternative search engines, video services, social media platforms, and news outlets,
with direct links. Using these new tools will open a whole new world of the free and
independent Internet, without censorship, the way it was supposed to be.

It is a compelling necessity, indeed a requirement of self-preservation by asserting
human rights, for the general public to immediately “vote with their feet” by
abandoning the online platforms of self-appointed censors, and switching to free and
fair service providers.

If humanity does not collectively send the strongest possible message to censoring
mega-corporations now, then it will quickly and perhaps permanently lose all human
rights to individually communicate any meaningful messages to each other.

2
Why This Report Was Written Now – The urgent need for this report was discovered
by Judges of the independent Judiciary profession, while working on a human rights
case at Bar in a Court of international Justice:

First the lawyers found that key facts of public record, which should appear in top
results for their expertly highly relevant search terms, were wholly excluded from
online search results, which instead yielded only an abundance of state-sponsored
propaganda from the governmental Defendant, obfuscating or misrepresenting facts,
without references to any actual verifiable facts nor to any real sources.

Next when the lawyers asked the Chamber of Instruction Judges for assistance in
verifying official facts needed to develop the case, the investigating Judges of the
Court found that interviewed witnesses often provided email links to webpages
containing the facts complete with source references, which never appeared in any
search results, even when the full page titles together with whole paragraphs in
quotes were used as the search terms.

Finally, when the Court published a Judgment in one case, and a Court Order in
another human rights case, the Chamber of Presiding Judges saw that on the first day
the press release post and also the online document held the top two positions of the
first search results page, as they should – based on the keywords. However, only a
short 24 hours later, both were suddenly buried beyond any ability to find them,
appearing to have been completely excluded from all search results.

None of the participating law firms or Judges had ever seen such obvious and
obstructionist censorship of factual and official information of public record before
July and August of the year 2017.

The Court, outraged at such brazen and intrusive censorship flagrantly violating
international law and obstructing official Judiciary authorities, and recognizing this
censorship as a direct sabotage of the ability of any law firm or Court to function
effectively in the online information age, approached the Council on Alternative Policy
Studies (CAPS), requesting to urgently write this report to provide some solution.

3
Proof that Mass Censorship has Already Begun

During April to June 2017, Google has officially announced – and thus publicly
admitted – the rollout of a major new search engine algorithm for outright censorship,
which liberal websites say severely restricts “public access to Internet websites that
operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media”. The
announcement was “virtually buried by the corporate media. Neither the New York
Times nor the Wall Street Journal has reported the statement. The Washington Post
limited its coverage of the statement to a single blog post.” (World Socialist Web Site,
Google’s Chief Legitimizes New Censorship Algorithm, 31 July 2017.)

The head of Google’s parent company, Eric Schmidt, is a prominent and active
participant in the secretive “Bilderberg group” of leaders implementing the globalist
anti-humanitarian agenda, which has declared a “war on information”, specifically to
prevent “growing populism” (The Guardian, Bilderberg: The World’s Most Secretive
Conference, 02 June 2017).

In November 2016, both Google and Facebook announced new algorithms which
censor independent media as so-called “fake news”, specifically labeling all anti-
globalist or truth movement content as “conspiracy theories” and “misleading
information”. The policy declares the media monopolies as self-appointed arbiters
over what content may be labeled “misleading or deceptive”. Facebook has admitted
that it already started “to closely vet all prospective publishers and monitor existing
ones to ensure compliance.” (CBS News, Facebook Google Announce New Policies, 15
November 2016.)

Google has openly admitted that it now blocks or restricts access to all content which
does not agree with “established” mainstream mass media narratives, by labeling it as
“low quality” information (21st Century Wire, Google is the Engine of Censorship, 11
August 2017).

The current highly aggressive censorship is implemented by “disappearing” all posts of
dissenting content, making them invisible to followers and excluded from search
results, essentially quarantined in a gulag which Google and YouTube call a “limited
state”, to “isolate and contain” targeted users with dissenting opinions. (21st Century
Wire, Digital Tyranny: Google and Facebook’s Censorship Program, 06 August 2017.)

4
Although Google is criticized for its censorship mostly suppressing conservative
viewpoints, many liberal, progressive, anti-war and democratic websites are also being
buried into digital oblivion. Such liberal sites are also widely reporting that Google
“restricts access to alternative websites, whose coverage and interpretation of events
conflict with those of establishment media outlets… to effectively conceal or bury
content… Google is using these criminal methods to block users from accessing
political viewpoints the company deems objectionable”. (World Socialist Website,
New Google Algorithm Restricts Access, 27 July 2017.)

Using the excuse of a claimed need to filter out so-called “fake news”, now “Google
decides not only what political views it wants censored, but also what sites are to be
favored.” Google’s official rhetoric frequently refers to allowing only “authoritative”
sources of information, a word defined by Oxford English Dictionary as meaning “from
an official source and requiring compliance or obedience.” Google openly shows that
it “does not want people to access anything besides the official narrative, worked out
by the government, intelligence agencies… political parties, and transmitted to the
population by the corporate-controlled media.” (World Socialist Web Site, Google’s
Chief Legitimizes New Censorship Algorithm, 31 July 2017.)

This active program of sweeping content censorship also includes what is called
“demonetization”, which essentially means monetary censorship, by banning and
blocking all advertising revenues which support independent websites with alternative
viewpoints (CBS News, Facebook Google Announce New Policies, 15 November 2016).

Facebook declared it will not “display ads” in websites containing allegedly
“misleading” content, and Google announced its program to “restrict ad serving on
pages that misrepresent” information. YouTube, owned by Google, went even further
with more subjective criteria, imposing demonetization of content merely involving
any “sensitive” or “controversial” topics (i.e. anything that is real news), as supposedly
“not advertiser friendly”. (Journalism News, Google and Facebook Will be Arbiters of
Truth in War on ‘Fake News’, 17 February 2017.)

YouTube further expanded the globalist anti-populist witch hunt to “controversial
religious” content, positioning it to escalate censorship even against human rights to
Freedom of Religion. While videos of dissenting opinions are not deleted, they are
“placed in a limited state”, demonetized and hidden, never to appear in search results.
The announcement was superficially wrapped in vague references to “radicalization
and terrorism”, apparently only as a false justification and distraction from the core
strategic rollout of censorship for its own sake. (YouTube, An Update on Our
Commitment to Fight Content Online, 01 August 2017.)

5
Exposing the Self-Appointed Arbiters of “Truth”

Any idea that tech-giants like Google could be trusted as a fair arbiter of any “truth” is
conclusively disproven by an internal memo of August 2017, written by the Google
engineer turned whistle-blower James Damore, who was immediately fired for daring
to express any independent political opinion. The memo exposed Google’s repressive
political culture of imposing globalist propaganda under the social dictatorship of
political correctness, which mandates strict intolerance of any and all alternative
viewpoints in the name of supposed “diversity”. (21st Century Wire, Google Fires Man
Who Complained About Repressive Political Culture, 08 August 2017.)

The memo, entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”, revealed how Google
executives are promoting “the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this
[globalist] ideology”, through a corporate “culture of shaming and misrepresentation…
unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber”. It highlighted that establishment
“biases” are enforced by “shaming into silence” with “the possibility of being fired”,
and witnessed that “honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the
dominant ideology”, as “a politically correct monoculture” which “removes any checks
against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies”. (Gizmodo, Exclusive: Full
10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed at Google, 05 August 2017.)

This repressive politicized culture imposed by Google executives is necessarily
reflected in its new censorship program implemented by its automated search engine
algorithms.

In addition to direct censorship by blocking content, in October 2017 Google also
launched a so-called “fact checking” feature in the US and UK on Google News. The
system labels links on the search results page to “show whether it is considered to be
true or false”. Whatever cannot be outright censored without public backlash can
thus be portrayed as supposedly discredited. (Such practice is most likely to
systematically promote false unlawful defamation, including what lawyers call false-
light defamation, against independent content publishers.)

The officially admitted purpose of this “fact checking” is to favor establishment
websites which are “algorithmically determined to be an authoritative source of
information”. (The Guardian, Google to Display Fact-Checking Labels if News is True or
False, 07 April 2017.)

6
Facebook first rolled out a “fact checking” feature in March 2017, which flags links
subjectively labeled as “Disputed Content”, citing supposed “independent fact-
checkers to crack down on” disagreeable content. The system also triggers a series of
repeated “pop-up” warning boxes to discourage users from clicking “Publish” to share
a link with dissenting content. (The Guardian, Fact-Checkers: Facebook New Alert to
Combat Fake News, 22 March 2017.)

The primary Facebook “fact-checkers” include Correctiv, Snopes and Politifact (The
Guardian, Fact-Checkers: Facebook New Alert to Combat Fake News, 22 March 2017):

Correctiv is funded by the globalist George Soros through his “Open Society
Foundation”, and is predominantly staffed by “political correctness” globalists who
write for openly biased publications (Media Fact Watch, Facebook ‘Fact-Checker’
Censorship Team Funded by Soros to Silence Real Facts, 09 February 2017). Soros and
his foundation were exposed for funding and directing fake “grass-roots” protests and
sponsoring artificial political destabilization internationally, including the illegal coup
which overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine (World Net Daily,
Soros Heavily Invested in Ukraine Crisis, 04 March 2014).

George Soros also funds his supporting foundation “Media Matters”, dedicated to
silencing alternative media by falsely pretending to “discredit” independent outlets, to
enforce the dominance of globalist establishment media. (Media Fact Watch, Media
Matters Assembled Team Focused on Discrediting Independent Media, 18 February
2017.) A confidential manifesto of the “strategic plan” of Media Matters admits this
agenda to “weaponize our research products to… take action against the changing
[independent] media... Key [populist] figures will lose credibility and influence in
response to our research and pressure”, the intended result of Soros-sponsored fake-
news hit-pieces of false defamation. (David Brock, Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan
for Action, Media Matters, 2017, Internal Memo marked “Private and Confidential”.)

George Soros publicly admitted in a deleted (censored) “60 Minutes” interview that he
was a real Nazi collaborator, who actively “helped in the confiscation of property from
the Jews… but it was no problem at all… I had no sense of guilt.” (Steve Krost,
Interview with George Soros, CBS “60 Minutes”, 20 December 1998; See Video.) He
also stated that the year 1944 when 70% of his fellow Hungarian Jews were killed by
the Nazis was “the happiest [year] of his life” (Kaufman, Soros: The Life and Times of a
Messianic Billionaire, Knopf, p.5, p.37).

7
Snopes has a logo actually including the motto “Rumor Has It”, openly admitting it is
driven by politicized rumors and not facts. It was founded by a husband and wife who
used a false letterhead claiming to be a non-existent society to start their “research”,
which is nothing more than searching for things on Google. She admitted in legal
documents his embezzlement of company funds to spend on prostitutes. Snopes later
employed his new wife as an “administrator”, who is actually a career “escort and
porn actress”. Its main “fact checker” admitted on her blog “ViceVixen” that she has
published Snopes articles “while smoking pot”. (Daily Mail, Exclusive: Facebook ‘Fact
Checker’ Defrauding Website to Pay for Prostitutes, 21 December 2016.)

Politifact uses a “Truth-O-Meter” rating scale, determined by “fact checkers” who
themselves write openly biased articles blindly repeating globalist talking points
despite all contrary facts (Media Fact Watch, Sad Yet Not Surprising: Politifact, 01
January 2017).

Google also claims that its supposed “fact checks” are performed by “named trusted
publishers and fact-checkers”. (The Guardian, Google to Display Fact-Checking Labels
if News is True or False, 07 April 2017.) Google also uses Snopes and Politifact, as well
as BuzzFeed and Salon (The Daily Wire, Google Fact-Checks News Using Buzzfeed,
Salon, Snopes, 10 April 2017).

BuzzFeed was exposed for “overt censorship” deleting articles because the mere
“tone” was considered not “advertiser-friendly”, making 4,000 posts “quietly
disappear”. It was also exposed for plagiarism. (Columbia Journalism Review,
BuzzFeed’s Censorship Problem, 16 April 2015.) BuzzFeed was also exposed for
publishing a fake “dossier” from anonymous sources with “literally no evidence on
offer… that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true”. BuzzFeed’s
Senior Editor publicly admitted that the false document was known to be “prepared
for political opponents” and that “there is serious reason to doubt the allegations” in
that fake dossier. (New York Post, BuzzFeed’s Report Takes ‘Fake News’ to a New
Level, 10 January 2017)

Salon was exposed for publishing a series of at least five articles of globalist “political
correctness” propaganda in 2015 actually promoting and normalizing pedophilia. It
deleted its pedophilia articles two years later in 2017, only because it wanted to
launch false defamation wrongfully accusing a libertarian speaker of indirect
comments which could be misinterpreted as vaguely tolerant of pedophilia. Salon
then published the false defamation hit-piece, ignoring the fact that the speaker had
already publicly condemned Salon for its own flagrant pro-pedophilia articles. (Media
Fact Watch, Salon.com Removed Pro-Pedophilia Stories Before Left-Wing Attack, 23
February 2017.)

8
YouTube in August 2017 announced “tougher standards for videos that are
controversial but do not violate our policies”, relying on “expert institutions” including
the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), claimed to have “expert knowledge of complex
issues like hate speech” and other highly subjective globalist pseudo-legal
euphemisms used for censoring Freedom of Speech. Note that so-called “hate
speech” is not a legal term, and is increasingly applied when the speaker hates
anything at all, including even hating evil, wrongdoing or injustice.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – irrespective of its unrelated Jewish advocacy – is
well known for promoting globalist authoritarian policies, driven by an aggressive bias
against any alternative viewpoints dissenting from establishment propaganda. It was
exposed for publishing a false list of alleged “Alt-Right” (i.e. populist) members, which
maliciously featured many classical liberals and social libertarians who advocate
tolerance and inclusiveness but simply disagree with the globalist agenda dismantling
human rights, labeling them as “extremists”. Ironically, such provably false portrayal
with willful disregard for verifiable facts is the legal definition of “Defamation”, which
ADL is named for supposedly fighting against. (The Daily Caller, Popular YouTubers
React to Censorship of ‘Controversial’ Content, 01 August 2017)

Note that such “fact checkers” only check claimed “facts” using search engines, as the
means to impose censorship of those same search engines, thereby increasingly
narrowing the available search results. This is the practical equivalent of tightening a
noose around one’s own neck, to hang oneself with.

These above groups are the so-called “third party fact checkers” of the Internet,
empowered by mega-corporations to be the self-proclaimed “arbiters of truth”,
wielding the artificial authority to impose mass censorship suppressing the largest
communications channel in history for exercising basic human rights of Freedom of
Speech.

These are the much touted “experts”, from tech engineers to amateur bloggers to
prostitutes to Nazi collaborators, who now dictate what the people are allowed to
think, write, see or read, to enforce their radical political globalist ideology upon the
rest of the world.

9
Censorship as Major Violations of Human Rights

This corporate censorship now facing and threatening all peoples of the world is in
flagrant violation of fundamental human rights to Freedom of Speech, which are
enshrined not only in the Constitution of the United States (US Constitution, 1st
Amendment), but also in conventional international law:

Through the universal doctrine of Equal Protection of Law, national constitutional
rights (including Freedom of Speech) are also basic human rights, which are
enforceable at the higher level of international law. This is recognized and codified by
the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7) and also Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (Article 26).

Regardless of any particular national constitution, all countries of the world have
officially agreed that Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right of natural law,
permanently established as a protected universal human right:

The UN Human Rights (Article 19) and Civil Rights (Article 19.2) conventions both
mandate that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression… and to…
impart information and ideas… regardless of frontiers.”

Thus recognized and codified in conventional international law, Freedom of Speech
can thereafter never be revoked nor denied by anyone, and is enforceable at the
supra-governmental level.

The same UN Human Rights (Article 12) and Civil Rights (Article 17) also mandate that
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his… correspondence.
Everyone has the right to the protection of law against such interference or attacks.”

This is the codification of the higher natural law that the human right to Freedom of
Speech specifically includes communication as “correspondence”, which necessarily
includes the ability to both send and receive information, which by definition includes
the right to publish, and also to find and read, such information.

The idea, promoted by the propaganda narrative of mainstream “news” media, that
interference against Free Speech is only prohibited as “censorship” if done by an
official government agency, or by a near-monopoly as a quasi-public utility, is false.
Although this may be partially true only from the limited perspective of national law, it
completely ignores the very existence of human rights – and disregards Freedom of
Speech as a protected human right – at the higher level of international law.

10
International law mandates direct corporate and even personal liability for violations
of human rights (UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Articles 10-11; UN
Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, Article 3(b)), which is subject to direct
corporate and individual sanctions and penalties (UN Justice for Victims of Abuse of
Power, Article 8). International criminal liability applies despite the actions not being
prohibited by national criminal laws (UN Abuse of Power, Article 18).

Moreover, all countries are required to enforce internationally recognized human
rights, both by domestic law enforcement and domestic Courts (UN Right to Protect
Human Rights, Articles 9.5, 10-11).

Furthermore, all countries are also required to enforce “foreign” Judgments upholding
human rights, from any international Court of Law operated by the independent
Judiciary profession (UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, Article 17).

The Constitution of the United States declares that “This Constitution… and all Treaties
made… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby” (US Constitution, Article 6). “Treaties” by definition includes the UN
conventions on human rights and civil rights, both of which guarantee Freedom of
Speech.

Therefore, all human rights recognized in the UN framework of international law are
also American “constitutional rights”, such that all US Courts must apply and enforce
those international human rights, including direct enforcement against violations by
private corporations.

For these reasons, a US Federal Court of Appeals in Washington DC ruled that “basic
norms of international law” such as human rights “restrain our government”, including
its domestic Courts, “in the same way that the Constitution restrains it.” (US Citizens
in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2nd 941, D.C.Cir., 1988.)

11
Proof of State-Sponsored Agenda of Censorship

The escalating wave of new and pervasive mass censorship appears to be driven by a
state-sponsored agenda to essentially eliminate human rights of Freedom of Speech,
all self-justified and promoted by governmental establishment propaganda. The fact
of this new reality is supported by compelling evidence of several government
programs and initiatives, which demonstrate that allegedly “private” corporate actions
are actually in furtherance of state-sanctioned policies, implemented as governmental
joint projects:

Microsoft founder Bill Gates began his technology career as a hacker, reportedly
recruited by the US National Security Agency (NSA), after “he was caught hacking into
a major corporation” (Forbes, Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates Was Caught Hacking, 18
February 2016). He is a leading globalist, who has publicly declared that “something
like a world government” is “necessary” (Huffington Post, Bill Gates: ‘We Need a
World Government’, 27 January 2015, translated from “Süddeutsche Zeitung”
interview).

All Microsoft Windows operating systems by 1999 had special program codes for
“back door” access by the NSA, as proven by conclusive evidence discovered by both
British and American security firms. (Heise Online: TelePolis, How NSA Access Was
Built Into Windows, 04 September 1999.) Both Microsoft and the NSA have publicly
acknowledged their close cooperation in developing Windows XP, Windows Vista, and
Windows 7 (Computer World, NSA Helped with Windows 7 Development, 18
November 2009).

Microsoft launched its major “Bing” search engine in 2009 to compete with Google.
Microsoft acquired the Skype communications service in May 2011, and acquired the
LinkedIn social media platform in December 2016. The Yahoo search engine became
exclusively powered by Microsoft Bing in July 2009, and continued primarily relying on
Bing searches after 2015.

The Google search engine was founded with key seed capital funding in 1994 from the
Digital Library Initiative, a multi-agency program of the US National Science
Foundation with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Department
“Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency” (DARPA) program. The Google
founders reported to intelligence research program leaders until 1998 when Google
was incorporated. (Nafeez Ahmed, How the CIA Made Google: Inside the Secret
Network, Blacklisted News, 23 January 2015.)

12
Facebook was founded with primary seed capital funding of $13 million USD in 2004
from the CIA firm In-Q-Tel, through the National Venture Capital Association: The CIA
founded the firm “In-Q-Tel” in 1999 to develop and fund new technologies which
could provide “data mining” for government intelligence agencies. The CIA announced
on its official website that “In-Q-Tel’s mission is to… network extensively with those in
industry, the venture capital community… and any others who are at the forefront of
IT innovation.” (Investigate Daily, Is Facebook the New ‘Big Brother’?, 30 September
2011; Natural News, Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the Tanking IPO, 21 August
2012.)

Facebook acquired the Instagram social media platform in April 2012, and acquired
the WhatsApp messaging and calling platform in February 2014.

Since 1948 the US Information and Educational Exchange Act (P.L. 80-402) prohibited
governmental information operations (“info-war”) and psychological operations (“psy-
ops”) by the US State Department from being directed at Americans domestically. It
required that such propaganda “shall not be disseminated within the United States”
(§501(a)), and prohibited the State Department from dominating or monopolizing any
“medium of information” (§1462). (Business Insider, NDAA Legalizes Use of
Propaganda on the US Public, 21 May 2012.)

However, the US National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of January 2013 included
a “Modernization Act” (§1078(a)) repealing the 1948 anti-propaganda law. This
authorized the State Department to manufacture false news directed at influencing
domestic audiences, and allowed establishment “news” networks to broadcast all false
government propaganda as supposed “facts”. (Foreign Policy, U.S. Repeals
Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News, 14 July 2013.)

Explaining the “Defense” aspect of this government program, and revealing how it
directly leads to mass censorship, the Washington Post reported that “the military is
more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social
media” (Washington Post, Somali American Caught Up in Shadowy Pentagon
Counterpropaganda Campaign, 07 July 2013).

Official top-secret internal training documents leaked from the NSA, verified by
journalists of the mainstream UK newspaper The Guardian, prove systemic
government data “collection directly from the servers” of the major internet services,
which are members of the NSA “PRISM” program. Microsoft (with Bing search engine)
joined in 2007, followed by Yahoo (with search engine) in 2008, Google (search
engine), Facebook (social media) and PalTalk (communications) in 2009, YouTube
(video search engine) in 2010, America Online “AOL” (with search engine) and Skype
(communications) in 2011, and Apple in 2012. (The Guardian, NSA Prism Program
Taps In to User Data of Google and Others, 07 June 2013.)
13
During only the short 10 years since Google search engine was developed, such close
collaboration between the “tech giant” mega-corporations and national security
agencies rapidly expanded from mass-surveillance, reaching into the much more
intrusive sphere of mass-censorship:

The US National Science Foundation provided federal funding for creation of a
government sponsored “Truthy” database at Indiana University in 2014. The system is
to be used as a web engine for monitoring and flagging “suspicious” content of
supposedly “false and misleading ideas”. It was designed as a “web service” for
connecting to social media platforms like Twitter, automating censorship of
independent information under the euphemism of “mitigating the diffusion” of
flagged content. (Washington Free Beacon, Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate
Speech’ on Twitter, 25 August 2014.)

Facebook chats were discovered in 2015 to be systemically scanned and data-mined
by the internet security company “Recorded Future”, which was created in 2009 and
funded by Google Ventures together with the CIA. Its automated system scans “to
identify actors… and emerging threat indicators”. Beyond the privacy issue, such
identification actually provides the essential framework for targeted censorship of
dissenting viewpoints. (NewsMax, Facebook Chats Being Scanned by CIA-Backed Firm,
15 April 2015.)

An Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” – straight from the predictive warning novel “1984”
by George Orwell – was actually created by the US National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) of December 2016.

This new NDAA legislation included a “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda
Act”, originally called the “Countering Information Warfare Act” (H.R.5181, S.2692).
The Act created a “Global Engagement Center” under the US State Department,
operated with the Broadcasting Board of Governors and other agencies. The new
agency was created to “develop and disseminate” supposedly “fact-based narratives”
to counter all alternative viewpoints which do not conform to state-sanctioned
establishment “narratives”, enabling censorship by labeling independent information
as “foreign disinformation”. (Zero Hedge, Senate Quietly Passes ‘Countering
Disinformation and Propaganda Act’, 12 December 2016.)

14
The official public statement announcing the Global Engagement Center claimed the
need for a “single governmental agency” to implement “whole-of-government
strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation”. The statement
admitted its agenda to “influence key audiences and populations”, through “an inter-
agency center… to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts”, including
through federal grant programs to influence NGO’s and think tanks to promote the
government’s determination of what is labeled “false narratives”. (Press Release,
Senate Passes Major Counter-Propaganda Bill, Office of Senator Robert Portman, 08
December 2016.)

In one key event that a British journalist noted “was hardly even reported” by
mainstream media, in September 2016 the German Chancellor Merkel was
accidentally recorded on a “hot mic” (microphone left on) asking Facebook’s founder
and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to censor “anti-immigration” posts criticizing the dangers of
the globalist open-borders agenda, and he assured her that Facebook was working on
it.

A short four months later in January 2016, Facebook rolled out its so-called “Initiative
for Civil Courage Online” as a crack-down labeling and censoring all expression of
legitimate security concerns as supposed “hate speech”, vaguely and loosely defined
as any form of “xenophobia”, effectively meaning any criticism of the globalist policy.
(Gatestone Institute, Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech, International Policy
Council, 05 February 2016.)

Mirroring such state-sponsored censorship programs in the United States and
Germany, the United Kingdom government has directly and officially asked Google,
Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft to “police their platforms”, under the pretense of
suppressing “fake news” which might include “extremist content”. (The Guardian,
Google to Display Fact-Checking Labels if News is True or False, 07 April 2017.)

15
Censorship as an Assault Against Civilization

The only legitimate role of search engines is to provide relevant search results, to
facilitate public access to information. The only legitimate role of social media
platforms is to facilitate public access to communications.

By restricting access by censorship to impose and enforce only state-sanctioned
mainstream narratives, service providers abandon that essential function, thereby
destroying the sole justification for their own existence. This is the same as for
journalists and news media, who also have no authority to be censors, but only to
report on factual information describing different sides of notable events, enabling the
general public to form their own informed opinions.

Search engines and social media content carriers have no legal nor moral authority to
be self-appointed censors, nor to be self-proclaimed arbiters of Fact or Truth.
Moreover, they have no professional qualifications to usurp any such role.

Throughout all of human history since the beginning of time, it has been the exclusive
domain of the independent Judiciary profession, relying upon and closely backed by
free and independent Academia of classical scholarship, to be the “finders of fact”.

Since ancient times, the most fundamental principle – the “scientific method” of the
legal world – for determining reliable Fact and establishing real Truth was the
“adversarial process”, which strictly requires full and fair representation of all sides of
each issue or matter in question. Indeed, the adversarial process, which came to us
through Roman law, Canon law and later Common law, is the very foundation of the
Legal profession and all Judiciary practice.

This timeless and universal doctrine of law is abundantly clear: Without the freedom
of expression and full consideration of opposing viewpoints, there cannot be any
finding of Fact, and there cannot be any determination of Truth. Even High Court
Judgments traditionally publish the minority opinions of their dissenting Judges,
preserving them as important and valuable, as those dissenting opinions often become
the basis for later Judgments of better established law.

Every time in history when corporations assumed the role of arbiters of “fact” by
filtering subjective “truth”, it was Fascism. Every time governments assumed this
same role, it was totalitarian Dictatorship. Every time the people were forced to
comply with or be confined to mandatory state-sanctioned beliefs and opinions, it was
the basis for Feudalism. In all such cases in modern history, at least to some degree,
this fascist dictatorship of neo-feudalism inevitably led to Martial Law, Slavery or even
Genocide.
16
Now, with this new censorship imposed by stealth, as a hostile takeover of the primary
flow of information and communications worldwide, the professions which are the
essential pillars of civilization can no longer rely on the establishment channels of
access to information:

Academics can no longer conduct scholarly research, and Scientists cannot conduct
scientific research, with any confidence that they have access to all relevant facts
considering all points of view. A whole generation of scholars is being sabotaged;

Lawyers can no longer develop cases representing clients, and Judges cannot
adjudicate those cases, with any confidence in finding all relevant verifiable facts
representing all sides to be considered for the Truth to be established. A whole
generation of jurists is being sabotaged.

As a direct consequence, this new censorship has already become a full-scale assault
against all Academia, Science, Law and Justice, directly attacking the very pillars of
civilization.

Even the principle that “Justice must not only be done, but also seen to be done” is
wholly undermined, as even the press release for any Court Judgment which does not
fit the mainstream propaganda narrative, together with the Judgment itself, can be
arbitrarily “disappeared into the memory hole” of the Internet by a globalist
corporation, never to be found nor seen by the general public.

This censorship is thus a highly aggressive, offensive and direct attack against all
human knowledge, and against the very foundations of the Legal system and Judiciary
system as a whole, which the general public rely upon to uphold the Rule of Law as the
cornerstone of civilization.

If left unchecked, if not strongly countered by the righteous indignation and active
resistance of “We The People”, this new censorship will lead to nothing less than the
destruction of civilization, and the sabotage of the human condition, by the wholesale
dismantling of all basic human rights, all through the strategic suppression of the most
fundamental human right to Freedom of Speech.

17
Also noteworthy, is this perspective explained by the British journalist Douglas Murray:
“The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being
turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. … In lieu of violence, speech
is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the
right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. The lid is being put on
the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up.”
(Gatestone Institute, Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech, International Policy
Council, 05 February 2016.)

Search Engine Anti-Censorship Alternatives

Many of the search engines which are promoted as “alternative” to Google (such as
StartPage and Dogpile) are only designed to address privacy issues, but do not
effectively avoid censorship, as they still rely on collecting results primarily from
Google, sometimes adding only the few other establishment search engines.
Therefore, it was necessary to test and develop a list of the most reliable independent
search engines as effective anti-censorship alternatives.

“DuckDuckGo” Diversified Search
www.duckduckgo.com

DuckDuckGo at first appears focused more on privacy, without a declared policy or
strategy of avoiding censorship, other than including more alternative sources.
However, it has its own search algorithms, and does not rely only on establishment
search engines, providing greater diversity of content. Many search results censored
by Google appear fairly highly ranked on the first 1-2 results pages, due to faithful
prioritizing of the relevance of actual search terms without filtering.

DuckDuckGo produces an initial results list with about 30% more pages found than on
the same Google search, each of which has a “More Results” link to reveal even more
related pages from the same organization, site or specific topic. The only disadvantage
to this larger volume of search results is the need to sometimes scroll through many
pages to find those results which are censored by Google.

DuckDuckGo is Based in England. It has mobile Apps for both iPhone and Android. Its
search bar includes the auto-suggestions feature. It allows to select a user interface in
almost every language, saved in settings, making it perfect for institutional use with a
multinational staff. It is good for both general research and following current events.

18
“Qwant” Unbiased Search
www.qwant.com

Qwant is named for searching a large “quantity” of data to find what you “want”. It
assures of un-censored content with “impartiality” of “unbiased results”, “without any
discrimination”, and its “sorting algorithms are applied equally” for a “panoramic
search”. It declares that “Everybody can face ideas that are not theirs, which is
healthier for democracy. And all companies have a chance to be known, thanks to
their actual merits.” Privacy is ensured by means of “encrypted queries”.

Qwant is based in France, and is funded by display ads on the results page, which
appear only as a direct result of the search terms used in that particular query,
without any tracking. It has mobile Apps for both iPhone and Android.

Qwant allows to select a user interface in many Western and Eastern European
languages, saved in settings, which makes it helpful for institutional use with an
international staff. It is excellent for general or in-depth research, as well as following
current events.

Qwant also provides an uncensored social media function called “Boards”, for posting
and following users sharing messages and web links, as an alternative to Facebook and
Twitter.

“UnBubble” Independent Search
www.unbubble.eu

UnBubble is named after the concept of avoiding censorship by breaking out of the
“bubble” of filtered search results, and declares it is “all about privacy and neutral
information” with “search neutrality”. Its algorithm collects results from “a diversity
of data sources”, giving higher ranking to independent “sources covering the whole
story of a topic”, specifically intended to help “researchers”. UnBubble is based in
Germany.

UnBubble allows to select a user interface in a few European languages, saved in
settings. Its search bar includes the auto-suggestions feature. Search results are
labeled with the source search engine for transparency, but tend to display with
outdated excerpts, and do not seem to include new sites or pages from the recent 3-6
months. It is thus good for in-depth research of specialized topics, but not helpful for
following current events.

19
“Good Gopher” Uncensored Search
www.goodgopher.com

Good Gopher is a specialized search engine for researchers, specifically to avoid
censorship, featuring focused searches from “independent media” and “academia”
sources, providing “independent news and information”. It declares that it
“completely bypasses the systemic censorship of the truth that is currently undertaken
by sources of corporate-controlled disinformation.” Good Gopher is founded by the
non-profit Natural News, based in the United States.

Good Gopher provides narrow search categories which are limited to either
alternative news (for real information), mainstream news (for comparison), academia,
or products related to news topics, so it is best for following current events, but less
helpful for general research.

Video Service Anti-Censorship Alternatives

Video services like YouTube are also an important source of information, serving as
search engines to discover content from researchers, analysts, commentators, and
alternative news outlets. Such videos are often helpful as a starting point for research,
providing an overview of the spectrum of different viewpoints on any topic, often
revealing leads and references to reliable sources of factual information. Therefore, it
is also necessary to avoid censorship on video platforms, and to actively use only
uncensored video search services.

“Minds” Video & Social Media Platform
www.minds.com

Minds is an “open source” hybrid video service and social media platform, which calls
its users to “Take Back Your Internet Freedom” and exercise “Free Speech” through
this “decentralization hub”. It is “designed to give you as much control and ownership
over your social media world as possible, and encourage you to express yourself
freely”. It thus refuses to censor content, and generally will only remove content
which is illegal (including unlawful defamation), promotes illegal activity, or is unlawful
“harassment” basically defined as “stalking”, “threats”, “doxing” violating privacy
rights, or inciting violence.

20
Minds provides “channels” as hybrid video blogs for all types of content media, which
are given additional exposure by integrated social media groups and chat functions,
further enhanced by a “Newsfeed” function. It offers programs to “monetize your
blog” with “ad revenue” to support content providers. It also offers a “paid
subscriptions” function which includes “exclusive content” for subscribers.

Minds further “rewards you for your activity online with revenue”, providing enhanced
revenue generating options including “Peer-to-Peer Boost” for sharing content with
other channels to earn monetization “points”, also allowing to earn points for
receiving comments, new subscribers, “up votes”, and publishing media content or
blogs. It additionally has a “Wire” function to send monetization points, dollars or
Bitcoin to “sponsor creators”, or even to “reward fans”.

Minds is based in Connecticut in the United States, and currently has over 2 million
monthly users. It also has iPhone and Android mobile Apps.

“Vidme” Video Platform
https://vid.me

Vidme is a “collaborative community” of “content creators”, designed to serve as the
“most creator-friendly video community”. It boldly disclaims that users “may be
exposed to content that is offensive or objectionable”, and declares that it “will not
censor or edit the content”. It provides a special one-click “transfer from YouTube”
function, and tools to connect with social media platforms to promote content.

Vidme provides “channels”, with video monetization by displayed advertisements and
“paid subscription” options, and allows “exclusive videos” accessible only to paid
subscribers. It has additional “fan patronage” features for “paid tips” from viewers,
who are rewarded as the “biggest tippers get the most visibility” on the platform.

Vidme is based in Los Angeles California, and currently has over 25 million visitors
monthly. It also has iPhone and Android mobile Apps.

“Daily Motion” Video Platform
www.dailymotion.com

Daily Motion is a YouTube alternative allowing to freely “discover content you love
from around the world”, to “share events and ideas that keep the world diverse”,
“where video-makers are free to share their world and connect with a passionate
audience”, with “the visibility they need”. It refuses to censor content, essentially
prohibiting only illegal material, incitement of illegal acts, unlawful defamation, and
obscene or sexually explicit content.

21
Daily Motion provides “channels” with branding and customization options. It offers
advertising programs combined with “video monetization”, empowering content
providers to generate revenues. It also has features for “paid content” subscriptions
and “website monetization”.

Daily Motion is a French company based in Paris, with operations in New York, and
currently has over 300 million users. It also has iPhone, Android and Windows phone
mobile Apps.

Note: Daily Motion video hosting directly supports monetization on the Patreon
platform (see description below) by embedding the URL link in Patreon posts.

“Vimeo” Video Platform
www.vimeo.com

Vimeo was created by a “community of filmmakers”, and features a robust “category”
of “Reporting & Journalism” channels to promote free and independent alternative
news. It’s Policy Guidelines state that moderators “generally remove” videos
containing “derogatory or inflammatory statements” which appear “malicious” or
intended to “attack a particular group”. However, Vimeo assures that users can “post
videos that criticize or disapprove of people and events”, and only “need to be
respectful and not cross the line that separates criticism from abuse”.

Vimeo provides “channels” which are given additional exposure by “categories”. It
offers advertising programs combined with video monetization for content providers
to generate revenues. It also offers a paid “video on demand” function.

Vimeo is based in New York, and currently has over 170 million viewers and 50 million
content creators among its users. It also has excellent “embedding” to display videos
on websites, and has iPhone and Android mobile Apps.

Note: Vimeo video hosting directly supports monetization on the Patreon platform
(see description below) by embedding the URL link in Patreon posts.

22
“Patreon” Monetization Platform
www.patreon.com

Note: Patreon does not directly host videos, but relies on posting URL links to a video
from various supported services, which include Daily Motion and Vimeo. It is thus
used to “embed” videos into “Posts” to one’s “Creator Page” on this membership and
monetization platform.

Patreon primarily counters censorship by serving as an alternative monetization
platform for content creators. It rejects censorship of content, and assures that “we
do not screen any content”. It is dedicated to “allowing for different and even
conflicting points of view”, for “people to be able to express themselves, be critical,
and discuss controversial issues”, and recognizes that “harsh criticism… is an
appropriate part of free debate”. Patreon only prohibits “hate speech” narrowly
defined as “serious attacks on people” based on discrimination, essentially involving
“harassment”, “threats” or incitement of “violence”.

Patreon provides “Creator Pages”, informally called “channels”, which are given
additional exposure by “categories”. It is a full-spectrum monetization platform,
named after the timeless tradition of “Patronage” empowering content creators to be
supported by stable monthly subscriptions from “Patrons”, developing and growing
their creative work as a full-time “membership business”. It is designed for all types of
creators, including video producers, writers, researchers, educators, artists, musicians,
or entertainers.

Patreon is based in San Francisco, California, and currently has over 50,000 content
creators among its users. It also has iPhone and Android mobile Apps.

23
Social Media Anti-Censorship Alternatives

Social media services like Facebook and Twitter are essential channels of
communication, which are essential to sharing factual information from free and
independent research and alternative media outlets. Such communication platforms
serve as community-based group collaboration channels, which are often helpful to
alert rights advocates and researchers about key evidence of facts or points of law
advancing a humanitarian cause. Therefore, it is also necessary to avoid censorship on
social media platforms, and to actively use only uncensored social media services.

“Minds” Social Media & Video Platform
www.minds.com

Minds is an “open source” hybrid social media platform and video service, which calls
its users to “Take Back Your Internet Freedom” and exercise “Free Speech” through
this “decentralization hub”. (See description above)

“Seen Life” Social Media Platform
https://seen.life

Seen Life was designed as a Facebook alternative, and declares “It’s good to be free…
We’re building the future together… and we still have the freedom to share our
opinions without fear of censorship. … We’re not going to… censor things about what
you believe in”. It does prohibit content which is “abusive”, “defamatory” or “invasive
of privacy”, or which “promotes discrimination [and] hatred… against any individual or
group”, in the context of its assurances against censorship of opinions and beliefs.

Seen Life is also suitable as a LinkedIn alternative, because unlike Facebook it does not
ban commercial activity or a primary business focus from personal profile pages, not
requiring commercial uses to be placed on separate “company” pages. It also allows
the lawful and non-misleading use of one’s professional pseudonym or public trade
name, which Facebook prohibits and intrusively collects multiple official ID cards to
prove one’s private name.

In response to Facebook’s artificial limitations on exposure of posts, a function closely
related to censorship: “With Seen, there’s no limit to how big you can grow… We’re
not going to limit messaging to your friends”. Replacing Facebook Messenger, Seen
also provides “your own chat room” for “live chat” with free internet voice calling.

24
Seen Life is operated by administrators of the sister company independent media
outlet Before Its News, and is affiliated with the encrypted email and secure
messaging and audio-video calling service Unseen.is, which hosts encrypted privacy
servers in Iceland. Both affiliates are highly appropriate, relevant and well suited to
effectively supporting an anti-censorship site. Seen is based in Mill Valley California,
and currently has over 33,000 monthly visitors among its users.

“Gab” Social Media Platform
https://gab.ai

Gab was designed as a Twitter alternative, and defines itself as “an ad-free social
network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of
information online.” It declares a policy of inclusiveness with social equality:
“Everybody is welcome on Gab. Our mission is to defend free speech and expression
on the internet for all.” “Gab treats all people with respect and dignity, regardless of
their background, origins and point of view.”

“Gab’s mission is to put people and free speech first… However, we do take steps to
protect ourselves and our users from illegal activity… Gab’s policy is to follow all
applicable laws in the United States… and the Supreme Court’s rulings on… free
speech and expression.”

Eliminating any basis for subjective complaints, Gab provides all users with tools for
voluntary self-filtering: “We believe that the only valid form of censorship is an
individual’s own choice to opt-out. Gab empowers users to filter and remove
unwanted followers, words, phrases, and topics they do not want to see in their
feeds”.

Modeled after the functions of Twitter, Gab enables users to share “micro-blog” posts,
which can contain videos, photos and links to articles. Instead of Twitter’s very limited
posts of only 140 characters, Gab posts allow 300 characters for more meaningful
communication of ideas with more intellectual substance.

Gab is based in Austin Texas, and currently has over 140,000 users since its launch only
last year. It also has an Android mobile App.

25
“Diaspora” Social Media Platform
www.diasporafoundation.org / www.joindiaspora.com

Diaspora is an open-source social media platform, notably featuring “social network
integration” with “cross-posting” to mainstream services, including Facebook and
Twitter.

When it was launched in 2011, the developers noted that while “managed by the
Diaspora Foundation”, a part of the Software Freedom Law Center, the system is not
owned by any one person or entity: “Our distributed design means no big corporation
will ever control Diaspora”, so it “will never sell your social life to advertisers, and you
won’t have to conform to someone’s arbitrary rules or look over your shoulder before
you speak.”

Named by the Greek word meaning a scattered or dispersed population, Diaspora
defines itself as “The online social world where you are in control”, because its primary
anti-censorship strategy is “decentralization”: “Instead of everyone’s data being held
on huge central servers”, Diaspora uses “independently run servers (‘Pods’) all over
the world”, emphasizing that “you own your data”.

Diaspora only prohibits content that is “defamatory, fraudulent… illegal or unlawful”,
or “could interfere with, disrupt… or inhibit other users” from using the service. The
service managers are only able to block any unlawful content with the approval of the
independent “Pod” server administrators, functioning as checks and balances against
any arbitrary, subjective or political censorship.

Diaspora features a practical function of categories, called “Aspects”, to “organize your
contacts according to their role in your life”, enabling users to “choose your audience”,
by sharing each post only with one or more Aspect groups of contacts, “knowing that
no one you don’t want will be able to see what you post.” It also allows to “post to
your profiles on other major social [media] services”, to “keep in touch” with contacts
who are not yet using Diaspora.

Unlike Facebook, but like several of the uncensored social media services, Diaspora
also allows the lawful and non-misleading use of one’s professional pseudonym or
public trade name.

Diaspora is based in Esslingen Germany, and started with 180,000 users during the
first year of its launch in 2011, which grew to over 2.1 million users by 2013, although
estimates of what must be even larger numbers are prevented by its decentralization.

26
Free Use of Mobile Anti-Censorship Services

The tech-giant mega-corporations dominating the Internet have not stopped at rolling
out mass-censorship against basic human rights of Freedom of Speech worldwide.
They also have begun censorship of the uncensored services, using censorship
attempting to coerce even alternative services into imposing the same censorship. In
addition to burying or blocking alternative platforms on the dominant search engines,
this is also accomplished by banning the mobile Apps of uncensored services from
mobile smartphones:

The Apple “App Store” (iPhone) in December 2016 rejected the App for the popular
social media Twitter alternative “Gab.ai”, claiming it “includes pornographic content”
posted by some users, by not censoring such content – despite the fact that Twitter
often features the same type of user-generated content. (The Daily Caller, Google Play
Bans Twitter Alternative Gab.ai App Over ‘Hate Speech’, 17 August 2017.)

Apple rejected Gab.ai from its App Store a second time in January 2017, this time
stating the real reason of subjective discrimination against “objectionable content” –
essentially a euphemism for any anti-globalist or populist Free Speech. The Apple
email notice claimed “Your app includes content that could be considered defamatory
or mean-spirited”, only because of mere “references to… targeted groups that could
be offensive” – Apple’s version of Google’s highly subjective ‘Hate Speech’ rule.

Gab CEO Andrew Torba summarized: “Apple is asking Gab to censor ‘objectionable
content’ while allowing this same content to exist in much higher volumes on every
major social channel”, revealing political double standards that Apple does not apply
to other social networks. Gab insisted that “We refuse to cater to corporate
censorship and will defend free speech at all costs”. (Inc. Magazine, Rejected Again by
Apple, Gab Says It’s a Victim of Bias, 23 January 2017.)

The Google “Play Store” (Android) in August 2017 “suspended and removed” the App
for “Gab.ai”, claiming – without any facts or evidence – that it allegedly “violates the
hate speech policy”. Google issued a public statement that social media Apps on its
Play Store “need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation”, thus openly
admitting that its policy is now to censor all Apps which refuse to “moderate” content
to impose the same type of censorship.

In response, Gab distributed a URL link for Android users to download the Gab App
directly from any web browser on their phone, without need for the Google Play Store
(Link Here), saying “Google can’t stop this”. Gab reaffirmed that it is “not going to
police what is hate speech and what isn’t”. (The Verge, Google Removes Gab App for
Violating ‘Hate Speech’ Policy, 18 August 2017)

27
Google banned the App only a few days after Gab publicly offered a job to the Google
engineer who was recently fired for daring to express an alternative viewpoint,
apparently in retaliation. The ban also came just a few days after Gab quickly raised
over $1.0 million USD in crowd-funding, apparently as economic censorship. (Business
Insider, Google’s App Store has Banned Gab for ‘Hate Speech’, 18 August 2017.)

Solution for Service Providers – All free and independent alternative service providers
must not rely on “App Store” approval and distribution on smartphones, but should
provide open access to their mobile Apps by direct download from their own websites,
together with any needed instructions or supporting installation tools.

Solutions for Mobile Users – All mobile Apps for search engines, video sand social
media platforms are simply interfaces to the websites of such services. While the
websites can be hidden from searches, and Apps can be banned from mobile phones,
nothing can stop alternative methods of direct access to websites which the user
already knows.

Therefore, for mobile phone users, there are two ways to have convenient mobile
access to all of your favorite uncensored alternative service platforms, based on direct
access to their known websites.

(A) Use Web Browser Bookmarks – All web browsers have a function to save website
URL links as “bookmarks” or “favorites”, and allow saving bookmarks into folders.
Simply visit the website of each uncensored service, save as a bookmark, create a
folder labeled “Un-Censored”, and save those bookmarks into that folder. The
bookmark folder will then serve as a personal “control panel” to access those
platforms. Most browsers can be set to save the login and passwords after the first
login to each site.

(B) Create Home Page Icon Links – Smartphone navigation is generally by means of
icons placed on the home page screens, and such icons are basically links to an App or
a website. Most users prefer this convenience of visual navigation by icons, instead of
opening a browser and finding a folder of bookmarks. This function is the primary
reason for the popularity mobile Apps. Fortunately, users can manually create icons
which directly link to the website of each alternative service.

On iPhone: (1) Open the phone’s “Safari” web browser; (2) Enter the website in the
address bar and press “Go” or “Enter”, and wait for the website to load; (3) Press the
middle button in the bottom navigation bar, which appears as an arrow pointing out of
a box; (4) Press “Add to Home Screen”; (5) Enter a name for the icon shortcut, and
then press “Add”.

28
On Android: (1) Open the phone’s “Android” or “Chrome” web browser; (2) Enter the
website in the address bar and press “Go” or “Enter”, and wait for the website to load;
(3) In Android browser, press the Bookmark button, then under “Add to” select “Home
Screen” from the drop-down list; In Chrome, press the Menu button next to the
address bar, then select “Add to Home Screen”.

Independent News Uncensored Alternatives

Finally, this presentation of a working system for direct and open access to a free and
independent Internet, by avoiding censorship, could not be complete without
addressing the sources of alternative news media content which are the ultimate
targets of such censorship.

The following is a partial list of prominent media news outlets which are more
balanced, alternative or otherwise uncensored, which seem to be the most practical
and reliable for independent factual research. Most news information from a
multitude of diverse alternative media is generally reported in these primary outlets.

These websites were selected for consistently providing source references meeting
international academic standards, and also for being credible publications suitable for
quoting as source references in research, official or institutional materials.

The Guardian (www.theguardian.com) – United Kingdom, international news,
generally covers all the mainstream news topics with establishment narratives, but
often features ground-breaking anti-globalist exposés providing factual evidence;

The Daily Mail (www.dailymail.co.uk) – United Kingdom, international news, generally
mainstream news with establishment narratives, but often covers independent media
topics providing factual evidence supporting anti-globalist research points;

World Net Daily (www.wnd.com) – Washington DC, international news, broad-
spectrum reporting of facts with penetrating analysis of geopolitical events;

The Daily Caller (www.dailycaller.com) – Washington DC, international news, broad-
spectrum reporting of facts and events of strategic geopolitical significance;

21st Century Wire (www.21stcenturywire.com) – USA and EU based, geopolitical news,
diverse coverage of independent media news reports with facts and sources;

The New American (www.thenewamerican.com) – USA based, international news,
general news coverage inclusive of independent and alternative perspectives;

29
The Independent (www.independent.co.uk) – United Kingdom, geopolitical news;
general news coverage inclusive of independent and alternative perspectives;

Business Insider (www.businessinsider.com) – USA and UK based, international news,
general news coverage inclusive of independent media news topics and perspectives;

NewsMax (www.newsmax.com) – Florida USA, international news and analysis,
general news coverage inclusive of independent media news topics and perspectives;

Global Research (www.globalresearch.org) – Canada, geopolitical news and analysis,
broad-spectrum reporting of facts and sources, with exposés and in-depth research;

Zero Hedge (www.zerohedge.com) – Economic and political analysis of geopolitics,
with frequent penetrating anti-globalist exposés, providing detailed facts and sources;

This list of news outlets is not exclusive of other sources, and is not an official
endorsement of particular outlets, but is provided as practical recommendations for
convenience of reliable access to credible independent resources.

Officially Issued with Inter-Governmental Authority under International Law:

Endorsed and Certified by Official Seal
Administration of the Directional Secretariat
Council on Alternative Policy Studies (CAPS)
www.iv-university.org/think-tank
21 August 2017

30