The Censorship Plan Decoded from Mike Adams pt.1

THE CENSORSHIP
MASTER PLAN
DECODED
(i.e. “The Adams Report”)
The blueprint for how tech giants covertly silence online speech, and
how America can fight back against corporate tech monopolists
By Mike Adams, founder, NaturalNews.com, Censored.news, REAL.video, Counterthink.
com, Naturalpedia.com and 300+ more websites, fill-in host for Alex Jones of InfoWars.com,
peer-reviewed science paper author, radiation protection patent holder (“Cesium Eliminator”),
mass spec laboratory founder (CWClabs.com), science book author (“Food Forensics”) and
award-winning investigative journalist
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
I
Table of Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
Part One: The Societal Cost of Censorship and the Denial of the Right to Exist....................4
Part Two: The Fight for Reality (censorship motivations and justifications)..........................15
Part Three: The Fallacy of “Fake News”...............................................................................24
Part Four: Decentralization and the Structure of News Consumption..................................36
Part Five: Technological and Psychological Methods of Overt and Covert Censorship..........42
Part Six: Legislative and Regulatory Solutions to Techno-Tyranny........................................53
About the Author.................................................................................................................59
This document is provided under a Creative Commons license and may be cited in whole or in part,
with credit to the author and a link to the source.
ADDITIONS AND ERRATA: This document may be updated with additional graphics, corrections,
links or updates. The permanent URL for this document in PDF form is:
http://www.NaturalNews.com/Files/Censorship-Master-Plan-Decoded.pdf
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
1
Introduction
To date, no one has assembled a comprehensive compendium of the aggressive censorship
strategies and mechanisms now being deployed against users being targeted by the tech
giants. This document aims to serve as a primer “blueprint” to explain both the motivations
behind the extreme censorship as well as the technical / mechanical means through
which such censorship is carried out.
This document should be required reading for any lawmaker, regulator or judicial decision
maker interested in protecting the freedom of speech that has served as a critical pillar in
our society for over two centuries.
Today’s attacks on the First Amendment are being carried out by a “triple threat” tag-team
of institutions:
#1) Tech giants - Their role is to carry out the mechanics of censorship, shadow banning,
“doubt interruptions” and other techniques described in this report.
#2) Establishment media - Tasked with promoting the lynch mob mentality of hysteria
and hatred which is translated into widespread calls for silencing whatever voices they don’t
like: CNN’s insistent demand for InfoWars to be deplatformed from Facebook, for example.
#3) Third party fact-checkers and moderators - These groups, such as the SPLC,
Politifact, etc., are given the task of flagging all undesirable political speech (or even speech
about natural health, as you’ll see below) as “hate speech,” creating the justification for tech
giants to ban or deplatform such accounts without having to accept internal organizational
responsibility for discriminating against selected targeted.
These three “fronts” conspire to attack, defame and deplatform originators of certain types
of speech (such as conservative speech, pro-Trump speech, natural health speech, pro-cannabis
legalization speech, etc.). Traditionally, watchdogs such as the ACLU would strongly
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
2
speak out against such egregious violations of civil liberties, yet the ACLU, being strongly
affiliated with the politics of the Left, has consciously stood by and watched this “free
speech massacre” take place, saying nothing in dissent.
While the books are burning, in other words, the ACLU is roasting marshmallows by the
fire. (And the EFF is looking around for more chocolate bars.)
Thus, we are now faced with a kind of perfect storm in America—a “free speech apocalypse”—
where all the institutions that once called for protections of the freedom of expression
are now actively conspiring to exterminate it. This coordinated attack on free speech
is now taking place in plain view. The agenda is not hidden, nor is it even debatable that
this is taking place. The goal is the complete abolition of all speech that left-leaning tech
giants wish to eliminate, and these efforts have been deliberately accelerated as the 2018
mid-term elections approach, carrying out what can only be called an extreme example of
election interference and a plot to defraud the United States of America by silencing the
voices of those who embody conservative philosophies.
What Robert Mueller accused the Russians of doing—interfering with U.S. elections—is
actually being carried out right now by tech giants, the establishment media and third-party
“fact-checkers.”
Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN and even the
ACLU are all conspiring to defraud the United
States of America by silencing conservative
voices, en masse, in the run up to a critical
election that may decide the fate of our nation.
The United States Congress must act. New laws must be passed and enforced that invoke
the authority of the federal government to prevent dominant online platforms from engaging
in the many forms of overt and covert censorship described herein. To write effective
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
3
laws that protect free speech, lawmakers must understand the technical mechanics of how
censorship is accomplished. That’s the point of this document: To describe the mechanics
of censorship as well as presenting thoughtful intellectual arguments that oppose the consolidation
of “speech authority” in the hands of power-hungry tech giants, many of which
are owned and run by individuals whose own politics reflect deeply-ingrained hatred
toward America’s founding principles.
If we are to survive as a constitutional Republic, the protection of online speech must now
be pursued with a sense of urgency, or we will soon find ourselves living in a hyper-connected
online society where only one “official” opinion is allowed on any given topic... and that
single allowable opinion is likely to be rooted in irrationality, falsehoods or popular delusions,
such as the absurd idea that a biological man can magically transform into a woman,
then compete against women in professional sports even while possessing the genetics,
musculature and sports performance of a male athlete. This very idea, which is obviously
an affront to real women, has been so thoroughly embraced by the political Left that any
who oppose it are immediately flagged for “hate speech.”
Read this document in full. Forward it to your representatives in Washington D.C. Urge
lawmakers and our President to act on this now, or we will lose not just our freedom to
speak, but our right to meaningfully participate in the dominant public space platforms
through which social and professional interactions now take place.
The author of this report, Mike Adams, is available to brief members of Congress or Trump
administration staff members with further details and analysis. Adams is located near Austin,
Texas. See further bio details at the end of this report.
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
4
Part One: The Societal Cost of
Censorship and the Denial of
the Right to Exist
Censorship by tech giants is an assault on the
right to exist in an online-dominated society
The predominant argument of pro-censorship advocates largely consists of claiming that
because Google, Facebook, etc., are private corporations, they can therefore engage in discriminatory
censorship of any kind they wish, without restraint or regulatory oversight.
This argument collapses when seen in the context of the broad recognition that participation
in dominant online platforms has become essential for personal, social and professional
interactions in the modern world.
Just as citizens of fifty years ago could not meaningfully participate in society without
phone or electricity service, today’s citizens cannot meaningfully participate in the modern
world without an online presence, expressed through the dominant online communications
platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.
Dominant online platforms have become
essential services for meaningful participation in
modern society.
This is further underscored by the fact that an individual’s online presence exerts forceful
and lasting influence on their personal and social life, professional life, career opportunities
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
5
and freedom of expression, including the freedom to engage in political debate that may
influence others in elections. To be shadow banned by Facebook or YouTube today is as
destructive to an individual’s quality of life as being surreptitiously cut off from phone
and electricity services in the 1970s, for example, or even denied the right to walk down a
public sidewalk and chat with neighbors.
Facebook is, in essence, the “public square” of modern life, with other adjunct services such
as Twitter and YouTube serving similar social interaction functions.
Yet no reasonable person would argue today that electricity companies, even though they
are private corporations, should have to right to cut off electricity from targeted customers
because the company disagrees with their politics. Similarly, internet service providers
(ISPs) don’t cut off customers who use their services, even when those services are conduits
for forms of expression with which the ISP may vehemently disagree.
Yet according to the distorted justification of the political Left in America today, all private
companies have the inherent right to refuse essential services to selected customers merely
because they disagree with the political views of those customers. By this thinking, banks
should refuse to lend money to Trump supporters. Housing builders should refuse to sell
homes to conservatives. Gasoline stations should carry signs that read, “Conservatives
not allowed to buy gas.” Even iPhone retailers, we’re told, should refuse to sell iPhones to
customers who are Trump supporters, because they might use those iPhones to post pro-
Trump comments that “offend” those who oppose Trump.
There was a time in America where one specific group of people was told to sit at the back
of the bus. Certain cafes were reserved for “whites only,” and people were judged and punished
based on the color of their skin. Online censorship by tech giants now judges people
based on the color of their thoughts, and conservatives, Trump supporters and advocates
of natural health content (see below) are overtly told, “We don’t serve your kind here,”
an obvious throwback to the era of discrimination and intolerance that Americans have
roundly rejected. (Amazingly, this overt discrimination is being carried out by the very
people who proclaim themselves to be “tolerant” and “inclusive.”)
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
6
In a society that has roundly rejected the
idea that private businesses can discriminate
against people based on the color of their skin,
established media giants are openly demanding
that private businesses now discriminate against
people based on the color of their ideas.
Because of the online nature of modern online, the censorship of individuals on the dominant
online platforms of open expression is an attack on their very right to participate in
society. No modern person can meaningfully participate in modern social and professional
interactions without an online presence on one or more social media giants. They have
become “essential services” for modern life, making them just as critical to modern survival
as electricity, housing or phone service.
Many on the political Left attempt to conflate these issues by citing the recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision which concluded that a Christian baker in Colorado could not be compelled
by the state to engage in artistic expression (decorating a cake) that violated his
private religious convictions. According to Leftists who are increasingly devoid of logic
and reason, this proves that private corporations can ban speech they don’t like. Yet the
Christian baker ( Jack Phillips) is not the Google of cake baking in the world and clearly
does not control 90% of the cake decorating business in America. Gay customers were free
to rather easily find a vast assortment of other cake shops that would gladly decorate the
cake, and they did not need to violate someone’s religious beliefs in order to achieve that
goal. Finally, Jack Phillips’ cake shop is not an essential public forum for modern society,
quite obviously, and his refusal to engage in artistic expression against his wishes in no way
harmed the gay customers beyond the mere inconvenience of walking down the street to
another gay-friendly cake shop and engaging in a business transaction there.
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
7
The central deception of tech giants
The tech giants now discriminating against individuals based on the color of their ideas—
companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter—have all pursued a central deception
that has only now been exposed.
That deception consists of these companies launching under the false pretense of being
“open platforms” that welcomed free speech from nearly anyone. None of these platforms
launched with an honest warning that stated, for example, “Warning to conservatives:
Your kind aren’t welcomed here.”
Because of this central deception, platforms like Facebook rapidly expanded as individuals
who had channels there promoted the Facebook platform to their own friends,
family members and professional contacts. This allowed Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
etc., to rapidly expand and become the dominant platforms of online expression and
social interaction.
Once their dominant market position was achieved, they then started banning individuals
based on the content of their ideas, deeply violating the original promise and pretense of the
online service. In other words, only after conservatives helped Facebook become the dominant
social media platform did Facebook cut them off from participating in that very platform.
Facebook baited users for over a decade,
exploited those users to build a dominant global
platform, then cut off the speech of certain
selected users whose speech it didn’t like.
In this way, Facebook exploited the good will of its authentic users, then violated its social
contract and business ethics, transforming its once-open platform into a discriminatory
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
8
echo chamber policed by intolerant, small-minded Leftists who have repeatedly demonstrated
zero tolerance toward speech that violates their own limited worldview.
Facebook, in essence, baited users for over a decade, exploited those users to build a massive
global platform that became the de facto standard for social media interaction, then cut off
the speech of certain selected users whose speech it didn’t like. This means the very premise
of Facebook has been a fraud from day one.
If Facebook had launched its platform with its honest agenda: “Conservatives, Christians
and straight white males are not welcomed here,” it never would have grown to become the
dominant social media platform it has since achieved. The market dominance of Facebook,
in other words, was entirely dependent on executing a “central deception” about its longterm
agenda.
Stated another way, the market success of today’s tech giants could never have been achieved
if they had been honest about their true internal goals of discrimination and censorship.
All of today’s dominant tech giants were built on fraud and deception.
Online censorship is de facto denial of the
right to exist in an interconnected world
To resolve the selective corporate censorship that targets political foes of left-wing America,
lawmakers and internet participants must embrace the understanding that denial of the
right to participate in the dominant online platforms for debate and expression is, in
essence, an attack on the fundamental human right to exist in—and participate in—our
modern tech-driven society.
If there were a broad marketplace of equally competing online services and gatekeepers
with roughly equal market share, each representing different viewpoints or “clusters” of
political thought, users would be free to choose, for example, the “pro-Trump” version of
Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc. But no such alternatives exist at anywhere close
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
9
to even 25% market share. These dominant internet gatekeepers enjoy market share dominance
of 80% or better, in their respective categories, meaning that both content creators
and content consumers have no reasonable alternative destinations from which to choose.
Furthermore, all of today’s dominant tech giants lied about their policies from the very
start, pretending to exist as open platforms welcoming all forms of legal speech. Yet after
they achieved dominant market positions, aided by users promoting their channels on
those platforms, they selectively began censoring and deplatforming conservative speech,
casting aside the very people they once promised would be provided a platform for freedom
of expression.
Through this deception, the dominant internet gatekeepers have become the de facto providers
of essential infrastructure through which modern citizens carry out their personal
and professional lives. To deny individuals their right to exist in modern society—by
shadow banning, deplatforming or artificially throttling their online expression—is to
violate an individual’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. It is to deny their very right to
exist in modern society.