Deux textes de sites dissidents de gauche US, dont l’un (gauche mod\u00e9r\u00e9e) renvoie \u00e0 l’autre (gauche extr\u00eame), mettent en \u00e9vidence les effets des mesures prises par le Syst\u00e8me pour assurer la diffusion des FakeNews<\/em> et limiter le plus possible la r\u00e9sistance oppos\u00e9e par tout ce qui peut se rapprocher de l’attitude antiSyst\u00e8me. Nous ne distinguons ici, – au contraire des textes cit\u00e9s, – ni droite ni gauche, ni les tendances sp\u00e9cifiques des uns et des autres (WSWS.org<\/em>, site officiel trotskiste), mais bien l’affrontement fondamental entre Syst\u00e8me et antiSyst\u00e8me. Les deux textes pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ci-dessous viennent des USA et concernent surtout les USA, mais ils pr\u00e9cisent une situation qui nous touche \u00e9videmment, ici en Europe, et qui affecte n\u00e9cessairement notre perception de l’\u00e9volution des \u00e9v\u00e9nements aux USA, où se situe le centre de la Grande Crise G\u00e9n\u00e9rale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le texte de Robert Parry, dans ConsortiumNews<\/em> ce 28 juillet 2017, embrasse la situation de la presseSyst\u00e8me et l’acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration continue de l’utilisation syst\u00e9matique de nouvelles manufactur\u00e9es en fonction du renforcement du simulacre cr\u00e9\u00e9 pour donner une repr\u00e9sentation de la situation politique conforme au standard-Syst\u00e8me. Au premier rang des producteurs de FakeNews<\/em>, les deux journaux de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, le New York Times<\/em> et le Washington Post<\/em>. Parry aborde \u00e9galement le domaine des algorithmes permettant d’aboutir \u00e0 un site ou \u00e0 un article, et il met en \u00e9vidence combien Google<\/em>, qui est le principal op\u00e9rateur \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, l’oriente dans un sens hostile \u00e0 tout ce qui se rapproche de l’antiSyst\u00e8me : cette menace longtemps \u00e9voqu\u00e9e est d\u00e9sormais op\u00e9rationnelle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Parry cite dans ce domaine un article de WSWS.org<\/em> du 27 juillet 2017<\/a> qui d\u00e9taille l’action de Google<\/em> \u00e0 l’encontre de WSWS.org<\/em>, et la tr\u00e8s forte diminution des visites orient\u00e9es par Google<\/em> vers ce site. Ce travail technique, fait sur les six derniers mois, d\u00e9montre effectivement l’op\u00e9rationnalit\u00e9 de la chose. M\u00eame s’il ne concerne que WSWS.org, et \u00e9ventuellement \u00ab\u00a0les sites progressistes dissidents\u00a0\u00bb, il est \u00e9vident que cette menace touche tout ce qui est antiSyst\u00e8me et dissident… Moralit\u00e9 : il serait temps que les antiSyst\u00e8me cessent de consacrer l’essentiel de leur temps \u00e0 se quereller entre eux, sinon \u00e0 se diaboliser dans le plus pur style-Syst\u00e8me, et identifient clairement ce que Ho Chi minh nommait l'\u00a0\u00bbennemi principal\u00a0\u00bb. Google<\/em> nous indique le choix \u00e0 faire et il est malheureusement \u00e9vident que ce choix et l’unit\u00e9 qui va avec ne sont pas pour demain…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (Le titre de WSWS.org <\/em>[« New Google algorithm restricts access to left-wing, progressive web sites <\/em>»] a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9duit pour des raisons techniques. Cette r\u00e9duction illustre fort bien par ailleurs le sens de notre position par rapport au dogmatisme qui r\u00e8gne encore et toujours<\/strong> du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de tant de dissidents antiSyst\u00e8me ou \u00e0 vocation antiSyst\u00e8me de tous bords.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n It seems that The New York Times can’t let a good lie lie. Even after being pushed into running an embarrassing correction<\/a> retracting its false claim that there was a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia hacked Democratic emails and made them public to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton, the Times is back suggesting exactly that.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Times’ current ploy is to say the Russian hacking claims are the \u00ab\u00a0consensus\u00a0\u00bb judgment of the U.S. intelligence community without citing a specific number of agencies. For instance, on Friday, the Times published an article<\/a> by Matt Flegenheimer about the U.S. Senate vote to prevent President Trump from lifting sanctions on Russia and deployed the misleading phrasing:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The Trump administration has opposed the sanctions against Russia, arguing that it needs flexibility to pursue a more collaborative diplomacy with a country that, by American intelligence consensus, interfered in last year’s presidential election.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n So, instead of explaining the truth – that the Jan. 6 \u00ab\u00a0Intelligence Community Assessment\u00a0\u00bb was the work of a small group of \u00ab\u00a0hand-picked\u00a0\u00bb analysts from three of the agencies under the watchful eye of then-CIA Director John Brennan and beneath the oversight of then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – the Times opts to give its readers the misleading impression that there was a \u00ab\u00a0consensus\u00a0\u00bb within the U.S. intelligence community.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In other words, unless a Times reader knows the truth by having read it<\/a> at a non-mainstream media outlet such as Consortiumnews.com, that reader would continue to believe that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on this foundational point in the Russia-gate affair.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And the continuation of this willful deception comes as the Times and other mainstream media outlets make progress in their plans to deploy Internet algorithms to hunt down and marginalize what they deem \u00ab\u00a0fake news,\u00a0\u00bb including articles that challenge the mainstream media’s power to control the dominant news narrative.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A report<\/a> by the World Socialist Web Site found that \u00ab\u00a0in the three months since Internet monopoly Google announced plans to keep users from accessing ‘fake news,’ the global traffic rankings of a broad range of left-wing, progressive, anti-war and democratic rights organizations have fallen significantly.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Google’s strategy is to downgrade search results for targeted Web sites based on a supposed desire to limit reader access to \u00ab\u00a0low-quality\u00a0\u00bb information, but the targets reportedly include some of the highest-quality alternative news sites on the Internet, such as – according to the report – Consortiumnews.com.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Google sponsors the First Draft Coalition, which was created to counter alleged \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb and consists of mainstream news outlets, including the Times and The Washington Post, as well as establishment-approved Web sites, such as Bellingcat, which has a close association with the anti-Russia and pro-NATO Atlantic Council.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This creation of a modern-day Ministry of Truth occurred under the cover of a mainstream-driven hysteria about \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0Russian propaganda\u00a0\u00bb in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Last Thanksgiving Day, the Post ran a front-page article<\/a> citing accusations from an anonymous Web site, PropOrNot, that identified 200 Web sites — including such Internet stalwarts as Truthdig, Counterpunch and Consortiumnews — as purveyors of \u00ab\u00a0Russian propaganda.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Apparently, PropOrNot’s standard was to smear any news outlet that questioned the State Department’s Official Narrative on the Ukraine crisis or some other global hot spot, but the Post didn’t offer any actual specifics of what these Web sites had done to earn their place on a McCarthyistic blacklist.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In early May 2017, the Times chimed in with a laudatory article<\/a> about how sophisticated algorithms could purge the Internet of alleged \u00ab\u00a0fake<\/p>\n<\/p>\n As I wrote at the time, \u00ab\u00a0you don’t need a huge amount of imagination to see how this combination of mainstream groupthink and artificial intelligence could create an Orwellian future in which only one side of a story gets told and the other side simply disappears from view.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n After my article appeared, I received a call from an NPR reporter who was planning a segment on this new technology and argued with me about my concerns. However, after I offered a detailed explanation about how I saw this as a classic case of the cure being far worse than the disease, I was not invited onto the NPR program.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Also, as for the relatively small number of willfully produced \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb stories, none appear to have traced back to Russia despite extensive efforts by the mainstream U.S. media to make the connection. When the U.S. mainstream media has tracked down a source of \u00ab\u00a0fake news,\u00a0\u00bb it has turned out to be some young entrepreneur trying to make some money by getting lots of clicks.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n For instance, on Nov. 26, 2016, as the anti-Russia hysteria was heating up in the weeks following Trump’s election, the Times ran a relatively responsible article<\/a> revealing how a leading \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb Web site was not connected to Russia at all but rather was a profit-making effort by an unemployed Georgian student who was using a Web site in Tbilisi to make money by promoting pro-Trump stories.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles whether true or not.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n While creators of intentionally \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb and baseless \u00ab\u00a0conspiracy theories\u00a0\u00bb deserve wholehearted condemnation, the idea of giving the Times and a collection of Google-approved news outlets the power to prevent public access to information that challenges equally mindless groupthinks is a chilling and dangerous prospect.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Even if the Russian government did hack the Democratic emails and slip them to WikiLeaks – a charge that both the Kremlin and WikiLeaks deny – there is no claim that those emails were fake. Indeed, all evidence is that they were actual emails and newsworthy to boot.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Meanwhile, U.S. government accusations against the Russian network, RT, have related more to it covering topics that may make the Establishment look bad – such as the Occupy Wall Street protests, fracking for natural gas, and the opinions of third-party presidential candidates – than publishing false stories.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In some cases, State Department officials have even made their own false allegations<\/a> in attacking RT.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The current Russia-gate frenzy is a particularly scary example of how dubious government conclusions and mainstream media falsehoods can propel the world toward nuclear destruction. The mainstream media’s certainty about Russia’s guilt in the disclosure of Democratic emails is a case in point even when many well-informed experts have expressed serious doubts — though almost always at alternative media sites.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n See, for instance, former WMD inspector Scott Ritter’s warning about lessons unlearned<\/a> from the Iraq debacle or the opinions of U.S. intelligence veterans who have questioned the accuracy of the Jan. 6 report<\/a> on Russian hacking.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Perhaps these concerns are misplaced and the Jan. 6 report is correct, but the pursuit of truth should not simply be a case of grabbing onto the opinions of some \u00ab\u00a0hand-picked\u00a0\u00bb analysts working for political appointees, such as Brennan and Clapper. Truth should be subjected to rigorous testing against alternative viewpoints and contradictory arguments.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That has been a core principle since the days of the Enlightenment, that truth best emerges from withstanding challenges in the marketplace of ideas. Overturning that age-old truth – by today unleashing algorithms to enforce the Official Narrative – is a much greater threat to an informed electorate and to the health of democracy than the relatively few times when some kid makes up a bogus story to increase his Web traffic.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And, if this new process of marginalizing dissenting views is successful, who will hold The New York Times accountable when it intentionally misleads its readers with deceptive language about the U.S. intelligence community’s \u00ab\u00a0consensus\u00a0\u00bb regarding Russia and the Democratic emails?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ___________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In the three months since Internet monopoly Google announced plans to keep users from accessing \u00ab\u00a0fake news,\u00a0\u00bb the global traffic rankings of a broad range of left-wing, progressive, anti-war and democratic rights organizations have fallen significantly.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On April 25, 2017, Google announced that it had implemented changes to its search service to make it harder for users to access what it called \u00ab\u00a0low-quality\u00a0\u00bb information such as \u00ab\u00a0conspiracy theories\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0fake news.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The company said in a blog post that the central purpose of the change to its search algorithm was to give the search giant greater control in identifying content deemed objectionable by its guidelines. It declared that it had \u00ab\u00a0improved our evaluation methods and made algorithmic updates\u00a0\u00bb in order \u00ab\u00a0to surface more authoritative content.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Google continued, \u00ab\u00a0Last month, we updated our Search Quality Rater Guidelines to provide more detailed examples of low-quality webpages for raters to appropriately flag.\u00a0\u00bb These moderators are instructed to flag \u00ab\u00a0upsetting user experiences,\u00a0\u00bb including pages that present \u00ab\u00a0conspiracy theories,\u00a0\u00bb unless \u00ab\u00a0the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Google does not explain precisely what it means by the term \u00ab\u00a0conspiracy theory.\u00a0\u00bb Using the broad and amorphous category of fake news, the aim of the change to Google’s search system is to restrict access to alternative web sites, whose coverage and interpretation of events conflict with those of such establishment media outlets as the New York Times and the Washington Post.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n By flagging content in such a way that it does not appear in the first one or two pages of a search result, Google is able to effectively block users’ access to it. Given the fact that vast amounts of web traffic are influenced by search results, Google is able to effectively conceal or bury content to which it objects through the manipulation of search rankings.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Just last month, the European Commission fined the company $2.7 billion for manipulating search results to inappropriately direct users to its own comparison shopping service, Google Shopping. Now, it appears that Google is using these criminal methods to block users from accessing political viewpoints the company deems objectionable.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The World Socialist Web Site has been targeted by Google’s new \u00ab\u00a0evaluation methods.\u00a0\u00bb While in April 2017, 422,460 visits to the WSWS originated from Google searches, the figure has dropped to an estimated 120,000 this month, a fall of more than 70 percent.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Even when using search terms such as \u00ab\u00a0socialist\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0socialism,\u00a0\u00bb readers have informed us that they find it increasingly difficult to locate the World Socialist Web Site in Google searches.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n According to Google’s webmaster tools service, the number of searches resulting in users seeing content from the World Socialist Web Site (that is, a WSWS article appeared in a Google search) fell from 467,890 a day to 138,275 over the past three months. The average position of articles in searches, meanwhile, fell from 15.9 to 37.2 over the same period.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n David North, chairperson of the International Editorial Board of the WSWS, stated that Google is engaged in political censorship.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The World Socialist Web Site has been in existence for nearly 20 years,\u00a0\u00bb he said, \u00ab\u00a0and it has developed a large international audience. During this past spring, the number of individual visits to the WSWS each month exceeded 900,000.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0While a significant percentage of our readers enter the WSWS directly, many web users access the site through search engines, of which Google is the most widely used. There is no innocent explanation for the extraordinarily sharp fall in readers, virtually overnight, coming from Google searches.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Google’s claim that it is protecting readers from ‘fake news’ is a politically motivated lie. Google, a massive monopoly, with the closest ties to the state and intelligence agencies, is blocking access to the WSWS and other left and progressive web sites through a system of rigged searches.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In the three months since Google implemented the changes to its search engine, fewer people have accessed left-wing and anti-war news sites. Based on information available on Alexa analytics, other sites that have experienced sharp drops in ranking include WikiLeaks, Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News and Truthout. Even prominent democratic rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International appear to have been hit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n According to Google Trends, the term \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb roughly quadrupled in popularity in early November, around the time of the US election, as Democrats, establishment media outlets and intelligence agencies sought to blame \u00ab\u00a0false information\u00a0\u00bb for the electoral victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On November 14, the New York Times proclaimed that Google and Facebook \u00ab\u00a0faced mounting criticism over how fake news on their sites may have influenced the presidential election’s outcome,\u00a0\u00bb and they would be taking measures to combat \u00ab\u00a0fake news.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ten days later, the Washington Post published an article, \u00ab\u00a0Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,\u00a0\u00bb which cited an anonymous group known as PropOrNot that compiled a list of \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb sites spreading \u00ab\u00a0Russian propaganda.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The list included several sites categorized by the group as \u00ab\u00a0left-wing.\u00a0\u00bb Significantly, it targeted globalresearch.ca, which often reposts articles from the World Socialist Web Site.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n After widespread criticism of what was little more than a blacklist of anti-war and anti-establishment sites, the Washington Post was forced to publish a retraction, declaring, \u00ab\u00a0The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On April 7, Bloomberg News reported that Google was working directly with the Washington Post and the New York Times to \u00ab\u00a0fact-check\u00a0\u00bb articles and eliminate \u00ab\u00a0fake news.\u00a0\u00bb This was followed by Google’s new search methodology.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Three months later, out of the 17 sites declared to be \u00ab\u00a0fake news\u00a0\u00bb by the Washington Post ‘s discredited blacklist, 14 had their global ranking fall. The average decline of the global reach of all of these sites is 25 percent, and some sites saw their global reach fall by as much as 60 percent.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The actions of Google constitute political censorship and are a blatant attack on free speech,\u00a0\u00bb North stated. \u00ab\u00a0At a time when public distrust of establishment media is widespread, this corporate giant is exploiting its monopolistic position to restrict public access to a broad spectrum of news and critical analysis.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration des mesures de simulacre-Syst\u00e8me Deux textes de sites dissidents de gauche US, dont l’un (gauche mod\u00e9r\u00e9e) renvoie \u00e0 l’autre (gauche extr\u00eame), mettent en \u00e9vidence les effets des mesures prises par le Syst\u00e8me pour assurer la diffusion des FakeNews et limiter le plus possible la r\u00e9sistance oppos\u00e9e par tout ce qui peut se rapprocher de… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[13229,2826,12681,10091,4464,13022,3965,5169],"class_list":["post-77397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-algorithme","tag-censure","tag-consortiumnews","tag-google","tag-parry","tag-russiagate","tag-simulacre","tag-wsws-org"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77397\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}dde.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
The Dawn of an Orwellian Future<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Marginalizing Dissent<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
An Orwellian Future<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
Russia-gate Doubts<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
Robert Parry<\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
New Google<\/em> algorithm restricts access…<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Andre Damon et Niles Niemuth<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"