Fact Checkers

The self-appointed ‘ministry of truth’ used by the controlled media and big tech industry in the process of verifying information in order to determine its veracity and correctness of news stories, blogs, speeches, studies, opinions, and political ads. Information they deem to be false is corrected or even removed from public view, in the name of the public good. Since the election of President Trump, there has been a collaborative effort by big tech and the controlled media to control and censor information ‘for the greater good‘. The Obama administration legalized propaganda after President Obama infamously signed the National Defense Authorization Act on December 24, 2016, which included the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act of 2016 allowing Obama’s federal government to potentially form its own “Ministry of Truth.” The CDPA offered a massive $160 million for the purpose of fighting what would later become known as ”fake news” in the U.S. and globally.

The funding was used to form propaganda programs like TechCamp, designed ostensibly to fight “misinformation and propaganda” as well as “fake news” across the globe. However a review of these fact-checkers’ obvious propaganda, leftist lean, and where the fact checkers and boards behind the curtain come from – such as Facebooks board ties to George Soros. This Obama-era propaganda program was questionably continued by President Donald Trump’s Department of State, under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Trump has continued to battle fake news about himself as conservatives had ‘conservatively’ seen 1.5 billion page views diminished as of 2018 (probably 5 billion by now) by the leftist propagandists.

As Sharyl Atkisson points out, this “discord is likely to persist because in large part the fact-checking solution is illusory. Many such efforts fail because they amount to a circular feedback loop of verification. The fact-checkers are like-minded journalists or often liberal Silicon Valley gatekeepers, who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues and controversies. This small group of players exerts an oversized influence, using fact checks to shape and censor information.

Twitter recently sparked controversy by taking the unprecedented step of adding a disapproving “fact-checking label” to some of President Trump’s tweets. The social media site publicly explained that Trump’s May 26 posts contained what its fact-checkers deemed to be “potentially misleading information about voting processes.”

Trump had said widespread mail-in ballots in the 2020 election would be “substantially fraudulent.” While the definition of “substantially” is in the eye of the beholder, the United States, in fact, has a long and ongoing history of ballot fraud.

Nevertheless, Twitter’s label warned that Trump’s claims were “unsubstantiated according to CNN, Washington Post, and others … Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.”

Like many questionable “fact checks” at issue, Twitter’s critique wasn’t really a fact check at all. It used past reporting from selected partisan news sources to claim that a prediction about what could happen in the future is untrue — before it even happens or doesn’t happen. It was, in short, a Democratic Party talking point.

Google has stoked criticism for inserting its judgment and opinions between internet users and their search results. In February, the search engine announced it was fighting “disinformation” about coronavirus by partnering with the World Health Organization (WHO). Google explained that user searches about COVID-19 would be directed to WHO’s online information. One big problem: WHO itself was guilty of factual misinformation in multiple instances. For example, the agency admitted it had wrongly called the global risk of the virus emanating from China virus “moderate” at a time when it had actually been “very high.”

Critics say the partnership with WHO reflects a trend by Big Tech fact-checkers to present often controversial global organizations as nonpartisan purveyors of objective fact.

Over at Facebook, censorship of accounts and ideas has included a fact check of a documentary about the lab in Wuhan, China, that was under investigation as a possible source of the COVID-19 outbreak. Facebook claimed the documentary was “false.” But an investigation by this reporter revealed that one of the authorities Facebook referenced in discrediting the documentary was a scientist who worked at the Wuhan lab.

Facebook did not respond to an emailed request for an interview with CEO Mark Zuckerberg or a representative.

Who’s Pulling Strings and Calling Shots?

Fact-checking organizations have grappled internally with the obvious but usually unspoken challenge in all such efforts: It is unrealistic to expect that any appointed group of fact-checkers has true expertise on all of the topics they litigate. Yet they do so every day.

As the labels applied to the Trump tweets illustrate, today’s brand of “fact-checking” is rarely cut and dry, such as verifying the date an event occurred. Now, fact checks are frequently used to litigate matters of opinion or debate, and to proclaim the truth about facts that are unknown, or cannot possibly be known, at the time. They commonly provide what they call the “context” they claim is necessary to assess a factual claim, rather than a simple assessment of whether a statement is correct or incorrect. As a result, many factually correct statements are deemed to be “half true” or “mostly false.”

Keeping this in mind, the biggest inherent flaw with efforts to fact-check information may lie in the qualifications, bias, and conflicts of interest among the ranks of the fact-checkers themselves. One example is the fact-checking nonprofit First Draft, started by Google at the beginning of the 2016 election cycle. Google is owned by Alphabet, Inc. Alphabet executives and employees comprise a politically active group that ranks among the largest political donors to Democrats in the country. During the 2016 campaign, Alphabet was led by an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and campaign volunteer, executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

First Draft is also supported by an array of liberal companies and nonprofits, including the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. First Draft tends to fact-check topics in a vein that’s consistent with its major donors’ opinions and interests. This is particularly true when it comes to controversies about vaccine safety and climate change, where First Draft appears to give little consideration to opposing scientific views and information. In April, First Draft uncritically referred readers to an article perpetuating the false story that President Trump had literally encouraged “people to drink bleach.” Among the group’s original organizers is its digital director, Alastair Reid, who has frequently tweeted and retweeted anti-American rhetoric and progressive positions.

For its part, First Draft says “certain projects and initiatives may be guided in part by the specific requirements of our funding partnerships” but “our donors understand that First Draft retains operational and editorial independence. Our decisions are driven by the organization’s mission and values.”

Similar issues surround NewsGuard, an Internet browser tool that rates the trustworthiness of news sources on search engines and social media sites. Created in 2018, it is funded in part by one of the largest PR, advertising, and data collection firms in the world: Publicis Groupe. Publicis is active on the progressive side of major issues and controversies from gender to race and climate.

NewsGuard states that besides its founders Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, “other investors play no role in the determination of ratings.” Its analysts have given a green light of trust to openly partisan sources such as Media Matters for America.

Last November, NewsGuard reached out to RealClearInvestigations, questioning its use of anonymous sources to reveal the identity of an intelligence community “whistleblower” whose allegations helped lead to Trump’s impeachment. But when RealClearInvestigations asked NewsGuard if it was posing similar queries about use of anonymous leaks by other news organizations, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, and BuzzFeed, NewsGuard did not reply.

The clearest example of conflicts in play regarding fact checks may be found by examining Facebook’s new oversight board, which was recently created to temper criticism over its decisions to flag certain content and accounts. According to Facebook, members of the oversight board “were chosen for their expertise and diversity” and “must not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.” They all “have expertise in, or experience in advocating for, human rights.”

But 18 of the 20 members of Facebook’s oversight board members have ties to Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which have spent billions of dollars on global initiatives aggressively advocating for the progressive side on topics ranging from immigration policy and climate to abortion, gender, and racial policies.

The pervasive Soros connections on Facebook’s oversight board may be no more than a matter of odds. Soros is such a prolific financier among global groups that advocate for positions he supports, that his name is bound to turn up when the chosen fact checkers are primarily activists and advocates for progressive positions. The result is a group whose expressed viewpoints and causes are far from neutral. By contrast, however, no members of the Facebook board have known public positions on the conservative side of hot-button controversies.

Genesis

One measure of the problems in “objective” fact-checking is the vastly disparate treatment accorded two of the most established partisan outfits – the conservative Media Research Center and the liberal Media Matters.

Founded in 1987 by Brent Bozell, the Media Research Center, characterizes itself as a media watchdog, and uses a blog called “Newsbusters” to call out what it views as liberal bias in the mainstream media.

Media Matters is a nonprofit founded in 2004 by right-wing operative-turned-left-wing operative David Brock as a counterpoint to Media Research Center. Today, it’s linked to a web of political action committees, nonprofits, LLCs and other groups that partner to advance their agendas in the news.

So the two groups are bookends in the increasingly partisan media landscape. But they are not treated the same by the so-called objective press. The liberal Media Matters is is frequently relied upon by journalism organizations and the mainstream media as if it were an accurate, nonpartisan source of news and information. An extensive search found no such treatment accorded to the Media Research Center. The credibility afforded to Media Matters by some appears to have evolved over time. Back in 2009, the Columbia Journalism Review called out Media Matters for a “falsehood,” citing a deceptive claim and press release. But fast forward to June 4, 2020 and an article in the same publication places Media Matters’ “editor-at-large” Parker Molloy among a group of “journalists, legal analysts and other experts” —  without disclosing the controversial group’s partisan affiliation. The article goes on to quote Molloy as claiming there is “honestly no reason to believe there’s some sort of liberal/progressive bias at social-media companies.” She adds, “Conservatives are really just trying to ‘work the refs’ as a way to push these companies into adopting a pro-conservative bias.”

What to Do?

Democrats and Republicans alike have stepped forward to say they have issues with some of today’s fact-checking and censorship efforts ahead of the 2020 election. But they differ on which political side they think has the edge, or what should be done about it.

Democrats tend to press for more censorship. Republicans are pushing to lift liability protections for social media platforms that engage in heavy-handed tactics to limit or shape content. The Department of Justice recently issued recommendations to reform the law. It includes ideas to strengthen censorship of content deemed harmful, providing transparency regarding the decisions, and addressing the concentration of information in the hands of just a few.

Sens. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, recently introduced the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, or the PACT Act. It would require Google, Facebook, Twitter and other online platforms to disclose their practices when it comes to how they shape and moderate content. It would also subject them to certain civil lawsuits they are currently exempted from.

On the other hand, eliminating liability protections could result in furthering the public perception that Big Tech is controlling what they are allowed to see and read, as companies could reasonably argue that they would have a heightened obligation to censor even more information due to the risk of being sued.

For now, the trend to “fact-checking” information the public accesses online and on the news is gaining momentum approaching the 2020 election. The evidence indicates the backgrounds and interests of those involved in the effort are serving to complicate rather than purify an increasingly fact-challenged information landscape.

Source: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/08/04/investigative_issues_the_troubling_fact_that_media_fact-checkers_lean_left_124663.html

Twitter

An online news and social networking service on which users post and interact with messages known as “tweets”. Tweets were originally restricted to 140 characters, but on November 7, 2017, this limit was doubled for all languages except Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. Ajit Pai, FCC chairman appointed by President Trump, called out Twitter in 2017 for appearing to have a “double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users.” This was previously exposed in a covert operation by Project Veritas that recorded 8 current or former  employees of the Orwellian company explaining the methods used such as biased algorithms and shadow banning. Even after the undeniable admissions, CEO Jack Dorsey denied any wrongdoing, but would announce in May 2018 an algorithm tweak to shadow ban as according to “behavioral signals’ they dictate.

In May 2018, Twitter announced a new algorithm tweak which basically shadow bans anyone their “machine” determines to be a “troll,” by using “behavioral signals” to determine if anyone is distorting or detracting from public conversation. Twitter’s vice president of trust and safety, Del Harvey, and director of product management David Gasca, on May 15, 2018, explained their “New Approach,” via the Twitter blog, after explaining the new algorithm was aimed at addressing the problem of “trolls.”

Today, we use policies, human review processes, and machine learning to help us determine how Tweets are organized and presented in communal places like conversations and search. Now, we’re tackling issues of behaviors that distort and detract from the public conversation in those areas by integrating new behavioral signals into how Tweets are presented. By using new tools to address this conduct from a behavioral perspective, we’re able to improve the health of the conversation, and everyone’s experience on Twitter, without waiting for people who use Twitter to report potential issues to us.

There are many new signals we’re taking in, most of which are not visible externally. Just a few examples include if an account has not confirmed their email address, if the same person signs up for multiple accounts simultaneously, accountsthat repeatedly Tweet and mention accounts that don’t follow them, or behavior that might indicate a coordinated attack. We’re also looking at how accounts are connected to those that violate our rules and how they interact with each other.

These signals will now be considered in how we organize and present content in communal areas like conversation and search. Because this content doesn’t violate our policies, it will remain on Twitter, and will be available if you click on “Show more replies” or choose to see everything in your search setting. The result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.

In other words Twitter went from denying they shadow ban people to announcing they not only do it, but they are tweaking their algorithms to kick the practice into high gear, by making themselves the arbiter of what is “healthy” in a conversation, who is and who isn’t a “troll,” and censoring and hiding the content of a user if they “interact” with someone their “machine” has already determined to be someone that behaves badly.

First off, there is a huge difference between a “troll,” and someone that simply disagrees and wants to debate a topic. A troll does nothing but attack others, is incapable of being civil, never addresses the topic being discussed, and consistently attempts to sow discord among discussion participants. What Twitter is doing is setting up their platform to only allow conversations they agree with, while hiding anything they don’t like by labeling it “unhealthy.”

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey took to the platform to claim “Our ultimate goal is to encourage more free and open conversation.” He doesn’t even appear to understand the irony of claiming they want more free and open conversation while defending the practice of censoring that “free and open conversation.”  Dorsey also claims they are doing this to “reduce the ability to game and skew our systems.”

The reaction to his statement on Twitter shows exactly what people think of his attempts to defend outright censorship, with one user responding to him with “Better to encourage hearing dissenting voices, which is supposed to encourage individual free thinking instead of “group think.”

Another user highlights how conservatives are already targeted by Twitter, stating “It only works if it is applied fairly but any program is only as good as those who do the programming. So far, 2 months in, your system is very biased toward conservatives, GOP and Trump supporters. You won’t even remove a page that shows child-porn.”

That is the problem right there in a nutshell, as Project Veritas has already published multiple under cover videos where Twitter employees admitted to “teaching” their machines to label users that talk about God, guns, and America as “bots.”

In fact, Dorsey admitted on tape that Twitter is so liberal that its conservative employees ‘Don’t Feel Safe’!

Sometimes Twitter takes punitive action without notifying anyone, including the subject. The practice of “shadowbanning” involves quietly hiding tweets in certain regions, with some effort put into preventing the target from realizing his posts have been deleted or made invisible to many other users.

In a similar vein, Twitter has been known to use automated filters that will render tweets containing “abusive” language invisible. The user is given no indication that anything is wrong – it looks like he’s successfully tweeted a message, but no one else ever sees it. After the Paris terror attack, media organizations noticed that automated filters were blocking images and keywords deemed “sensitive,” including gruesome photos and keywords thought to be used by ISIS supporters.

Such tools are supposed to cut down on harassment and abusive tweets, with the understanding that review by human administrators is impossible – Twitter processes around 500 million messages per day. However, the potential for tweaking these automatic filters to expand the definition of “abusive language” and turn them into tools of ideological oppression is clear.

Free-speech advocates have worried that Twitter’s decision to work with certain activist groups to crack down on “harassment” can give those groups an unhealthy degree of influence over the platform, as they file a high volume of dubious harassment charges to silence people they don’t like. The results can be disturbingly similar to the “safe space” and crybully censorship sweeping college campuses, in which the definition of harassment is slowly expanded to include much more than vile slurs, clear-cut attempts at intimidation, and violent threats. Complaining about bullies turns out to be a very effective means of bullying people.

Some Twitter censorship campaigns have been conducted by bypassing human administrators and deliberately abusing automated response systems. A few years ago, there was a rash of incidents known as “spam-flagging,” in which organized mobs of Twitter users were blowing targeted individuals off the service by marking a large number of their messages as “spam,” or unsolicited advertising. Twitter had introduced a “Block and Report Spam” feature to crack down on bot programs that were spewing ad messages into users’ timelines. It didn’t take long for activist mobs – usually left-wing mobs targeting conservatives – to realize they could use this reporting feature to lock the accounts of their enemies.

Twitter, along with many other popular social media platforms, has been criticized for being too willing to cooperate with government demands for censorship.

The French government’s desire to suppress certain material after the Paris terror attack, as mentioned above, is one example, but more authoritarian governments have even more aggressive censorship demands. One controversial example was Twitter agreeing to Pakistan’s demands to suppress “blasphemous” content in summer 2014.

That’s a very heavy censorship hand for a company whose CEO declared, just five years ago, “We’re the free speech wing of the free speech party.” It’s possible to have robust free speech while policing the most obviously abusive, obscene, or threatening language, but Twitter is looking more and more like a campus “safe space,” with the attendant abuses… and even less willingness on the part of administrators to justify their actions.

Twitter’s censorship of conservatives and alternative media has included the suppression of pro-life speech while allowing… almost advocating violence on women. Alternative Media icon Alex Jones was permanently banned from the Twitter platform in September 2018.

Twitter is also greatly interfering with the 2020 election process. In May 2020, Twitter added “fact check” labels to tweets from President Trump warning voters about the potential for fraud in mail-in ballots. The decision came just days after a USPS mail carrier in West Virginia was charged with fraud for tampering with vote-by-mail requests.

During the Minneapolis riots, Twitter again censored one of the President’s tweets, falsely accusing him of “glorifying violence” over a tweet that linked rioting to gun violence. The month after, Twitter put a “public interest notice” on one of Trump’s tweets warning that violent rioters outside the White House would be met with force, accusing him of “threatening harm against an identifiable group.”

In July, Twitter took down a meme retweeted by the President in response to a copyright claim by the New York Times, despite the fact that the image was substantially edited. In August 2020, Twitter took down a Fox & Friends interview with the President, accusing Trump of spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19. Also in August Twitter hid (claiming it was “misinformation”) another tweet by the President after he tweeted that mail drop boxes are a “voter security disaster,” that allow people to vote multiple times. The president also warned that the mailboxes are not sanitized to prevent the spread of the Chinese virus.1

“Quality Filter”

Jim Hanson, former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, discusses why he believes that Twitter is biased against Republicans and conservatives. He says,

They implemented what they call a quality filter that allows a liberal mob to attack conservative accounts using some of the tools Twitter built them – including these mass block lists where liberals have gathered hundreds of thousands of conservative accounts and Twitter built them a tool where with one push of a button they can block those accounts. And Twitter counts that as a black mark against the account. They’re using this as kind of a hecklers veto and its affecting a lot of conservatives. It’s affecting Republican politicians… Their accounts are not being seen as much as their democrat opponents.

Terms of Service Explicitly Allows Pedophiles to Discuss ‘Attraction Towards Minors’ on Their Platform

Social media giant Twitter quietly amended their terms of service in Nov 2019 to allow for “discussions related to… attraction towards minors” to be allowed on their platform.

“Discussions related to child sexual exploitation as a phenomenon or attraction towards minors are permitted, provided they don’t promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way,” reads Twitter’s terms of service.

Twitter also noted that they would allow for nude depictions of children on their platform in certain instances.

Twitter’s New Fact-Checking Tool:

Sources:

Chronological History of Events Related to Twitter

Twitter Locks Out Tom Fitton Over Accurate Tweet About Efficacy of Masks Exposed in Massive Danish Study

Twitter Locks Out Tom Fitton Over Accurate Tweet About Efficacy of Masks Exposed in Massive Danish Study

Twitter locked out Judicial Watch boss Tom Fitton on Wednesday for a completely accurate tweet about the efficacy of face masks. Tom Fitton was citing a massive Danish study published this week confirming face masks do not work and may be dangerous. BREAKING: Danish mask study that JAMA, NEJM & Lancet REFUSED to publish was just published in Annals of Internal Medicine.In the largest randomized controlled trial to ...
Read More
NYTimes Says "Great Reset" Is A "Conspiracy Theory" On Same Day World Economic Forum Celebrates It

NYTimes Says “Great Reset” Is A “Conspiracy Theory” On Same Day World Economic Forum Celebrates It

On the same day that the World Economic Forum heralded “The Great Reset” as a positive way to build “future resilience to global risks,” the New York Times declared the entire thing to be a “conspiracy theory.” Yes, really. The NYT was apparently upset that “The Great Reset” was trending on Twitter and published an article declaring it to be “A baseless conspiracy theory about the coronavirus.” In ...
Read More
Twitter gods Censor a Stream of US President Trump’s Tweets — The Sheep Are Not Allowed to Challenge the Stolen Election – Not Even the President!

Twitter gods Censor a Stream of US President Trump’s Tweets — The Sheep Are Not Allowed to Challenge the Stolen Election – Not Even the President!

Democrats, in the privacy of the Philly Convention Center, without ANY GOP inspectors, added OVER ONE MILLION VOTES to Joe Biden’s totals since Wednesday morning! It took over one million questionable votes for Joe Biden to nullify Trump’s landslide and take the lead by 10,000 votes in Pennsylvania. WOW! They Want You to Believe This! — Biden Gained Over 1 Million Votes in Pennsylvania SINCE THE MORNING ...
Read More
2020 Election: The Greatest Election Fraud in History as Globalist Consortium Carry Out Coup to Take Over America

2020 Election: The Greatest Election Fraud in History as Globalist Consortium Carry Out Coup to Take Over America

The democrats, having failed in every effort to oust President Trump from the White House up until the Election (RussiaGate, UkraineGate, COVID-19 Scamdemic), would now see the 2020 Election as their best opportunity to remove the thorn in the deep state's side. Besides, they had essentially been manipulating elections for decades and they had prolonged the COVID-19 pandemic scare by ramping up testing and counting asymptomatic ...
Read More
Twitter Capitulates: Reinstates NYPost Account After 16-Day Suspension for Posting Hunter Biden's Laptop Expose

Twitter Capitulates: Reinstates NYPost Account After 16-Day Suspension for Posting Hunter Biden’s Laptop Expose

Following contentious Congressional testimony this week from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and a 22% drop on Friday, the social media giant finally decided to unlock the New York Post's account just days before the general election - after more than two weeks in Twitter jail for posting a negative article on the company's preferred candidate, Joe Biden. In a Friday afternoon thread, Twitter Safety wrote that their policies are 'living ...
Read More

TechCamp

An Obama/Trump State Dept. program designed ostensibly to fight “misinformation and propaganda” as well as “fake news” across the globe. While TechCamp’s purpose was vague at its inception, it was allegedly first used to foment dissent and eventually civil war in Ukraine in 2013, following legalized propaganda under Obama’s 2012 NDAA. They promote so-called ‘fact checkers such as Facebook’s Maarten Schenk who has silenced conservatives by billions of page views on the CIA spy platform. It is unclear why the Trump administration’s State Department, under Tillerson or Pompeo, would continue an Obama-era program that may be at odds with the administration’s agenda and supporters.

Since TechCamp was founded under President Barack Obama’s State Department during the tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the opaque group has led dozens of events across the planet, and since the election of President Trump a disproportionate number of the events focus on fighting “fake news.”

Following allegations of fomenting dissent and eventually civil war in Ukraine in 2013, the organization seemed to keep a relatively low profile until 2017. However, in 2015 TechCamp taught Latvian journalists how to “counter misinformation and propaganda” at one of its events.

TechCamp seemed to increase its activity after President Obama infamously signed the National Defense Authorization Act on December 24, 2016, which included the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act of 2016.

According to ZeroHedge, this allowed President Obama’s federal government to potentially form its own “Ministry of Truth.” The CDPA offered a massive $160 million for the purpose of fighting what would later become known as” fake news” in the United States and globally. While it is unclear where this funding was dispersed, the timeline appears to coincide with TechCamp beginning its fight against “fake news” globally.

In short, as former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson took the reigns of the State Department, the group was allowed to flourish. During February of 2017, only a month after President Trump’s inauguration and after the media had already blamed “fake news” and Russia for the 2016 election results, the group began holding events in Europe with “fake news” as a major focus.

In its February, 2017 event in Warsaw, Poland, TechCamp featured a representative from StopFake, an organization that claims to “struggle against fake information about events in Ukraine.” At this event, the Obama-appointed Ambassador Bruce Wharton, Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, delivered remarks.

Later in September of 2017, TechCamp would hold another event in Warsaw, Poland, this time featuring the co-founder of Facebook fact checker Lead Stories, Maarten Schenk, as a “trainer” for the event.

READ MORE: Facebook’s Top Fact Checker Tied to US State Department ‘Disinformation’ Fighting Program

TechCamp would hold another event, aimed at battling “fake news,” in December of 2017, this time in Moldova.

In October of 2017, TechCamp published a blog post suggesting “trainers,” like Schenk, may find themselves working for the State Department, a U.S. Embassy, or for a major corporation as a result of their time spent with TechCamp.

TechCamp also routinely boasts about the accomplishments of its attendees and “trainers.”

As the Italian elections approached in 2018, the group published a blog post about a bias and fake news detecting website, funded by the State Department, created TechCamp attendees:

How might we use machine learning to identify articles that are true or not?  That question inspired TechCamp Reconnect Warsaw attendees Douglas Arellanes of Sourcefabric and Michelangelo ‘Ugo’ Barbara of Agi News Agency to create Bias Tracker, an open source tool that uses automated sentiment analysis to detect bias in online media.  With seed funding from the TechCamp program, Douglas and Ugo, in collaboration with the University of Urbino, recently launched a prototype for the Bias Tracker and tested it in the run-up to Italy’s March 2018 general election.

While it cannot be ascertained without a Freedom of Information Act request whether TechCamp received money from the CDPA, the Act’s $160 million was set to expire at the end of 2018. Before this could happen, Marie Royce, the wife of former Republican Rep. Ed Royce (D-CA), was appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at State Department, effectively becoming the Executive Director of the ECA. It should be noted that NewsWeek reported that Royce gained her role with the help of Republican fundraiser and former Republican National Committee head Elliott Broidy, who allegedly profited off the destabilization of Ukraine and allegedly sold influence over and access to President Trump following his election.

Also in 2018, President Trump removed Tillerson from his position, and replaced him with House Representative-turned CIA Director-turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Royce was photographed with Pompeo as he assumed his role of Secretary of State.

The organization continued to run, perhaps on existing funding, through the early months of 2019, going as far as to boast about teaching attendees how to use tools designed to detect “fake news” at its events. Then, in May of 2019, the organization was moved within the State Department to fall under the auspices of the ECA, effectively making Royce the head of TechCamp.

In December of 2019, Royce was photographed presenting a certificate to the individuals behind TechCamp.

As reported by The Gateway Pundit, just two conservative news outlets lost 1.5 billion page views on Facebook between President Trump’s election and mid-2018:

Floyd Brown is a conservative author, speaker and media commentator. In 2008 Floyd launched Western Journal which quickly became one of the top conservative websites in America. By 2016 Floyd’s organization of Western Journal and other conservative websites under his umbrella had more than a billion page views. Since 2016 Floyd’s organization lost 75% of its Facebook traffic.

Likewise, we spoke with Jared Vallorani from Klicked Media. Jared traveled to Washington DC with The Gateway Pundit and website owners at 100%FedUp in June to discuss Facebook targeting against conservative publishers with Republican lawmakers. Jared told The Gateway Pundit his organization Klicked Media, which hosts over 60 conservative websites, lost 400 million page views from Facebook in the last six months if you compare the traffic to a year ago.  Jared said, “We lost 70% to 80% of our traffic if you compare January to May 2017 vs Jan to May 2018.”

If you combine the total number of pageviews lost by just these two conservative online publishers you are looking at a loss of over 1.5 billion pageviews from Facebook in one year.

Meanwhile, TechCamp allows the man who likely helped orchestrate this loss, Schenk, to speak at its events in an official capacity as a “trainer.”

Source: https://nationalfile.com/rogue-pompeos-state-dept-uses-taxpayer-dollars-facebook-fact-checkers-to-fight-misinformation-and-propaganda/