Propagandist and Elon Musk Apologist Fred Lambert Runs Fake News Shill Sites To Defraud Stock Market
Fred is the Editor in Chief and Main Writer at Electrek. He mainly covers electric vehicles, autonomous cars and ride-sharing platforms.
You can read his work on Electrek, 9to5mac.com and 9to5google.com
You can contact him by email at email@example.com
Fred will do anything he can to keep you from finding out that Elon Musk is a scammer and a political corruptionist who has based is life on bribery and green-washing stock markets.
We worked with Elon Musk and saw these crimes first-hand. We thought you should know so that you could decide if you want to be associated with Musk’s narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, corrupt, criminal schemes. Musk likes to talk about futuristic bullshit but his workers (that have sued him for fraud, safety issues, racism, off-shoring domestic jobs, sexual harassment and more…) can talk about his prehistoric social deviancies at great length.
Elon Musk and his executives are criminals. They will lie, cheat, bribe, steal, sabotage others, rig the stock market, create fake financial data at the drop of a hat and cover-up their huge numbers of safety defects. They got hundreds of millions of dollars of YOUR taxpayer resources and used it to rig elections, manipulate stock markets and sabotage competitors. They bribe public officials to run cover for them at your expense. Elon Musk is a sick pervert who requires constant media attention and has depraved bi-sexual control needs. Look at his multiple divorces and the text of the abuse lawsuits from his wives, former partners, investors, employees, customers and others. While Musk spends your tax money buying cover-ups in the main-stream media, he can never cover-up the fact that he is simply a mobster who sweet-talked Google’s owners into financing his scheme. Musk stole Tesla from the founders of Tesla in a hostile take-over. Musk has invented NOTHING!
Elon Musk did not “win” any state or federal funding. He had all of his taxpayer cash hard-wired to him in a series of back-room crony payola deals. In a fair fight, Musk would have LOST (horribly) all of his funding if you compared his metrics, performance data and customer orders to every other applicant at the time. In other words, in a side-by-side shoot-out, comparing Musk’s applications with those of every other applicant for the same funds: Musk had the worst possible metrics of ANY other applicant. In spite of this, California State officials and Department of Energy staff were “ordered”, by their superiors, to hand Musk the illicit taxpayer money, and deny funds to his competitors, in order to stage the slush-funds created by the Department of Energy and The California State Controllers offices.
** If you saw the REAL financial records for Tesla/Solyndra/SpaceX you would see that Musk’s operations are smoke-and-mirrors. Musk cooks the books and manipulates financial data.
** One of Musk’s top SpaceX engineers just sued Musk and revealed that Musk lies about the dangers at SpaceX.
** You may think Musk has many fans on the internet but those “fans” are actually young Asian girls in overseas factories who have rows of phones set-up in front of them to pretend to be different people on the web. They are called “shills” and “trolls” and the factories they work in are called “Click-Farms” and “Troll-Farms”. Musk pays their bosses to have them create fake media hype about him on the internet because he is a sociopath who demands the public eye.
** You would get physically ill if you knew how many Tesla owners had been burned alive in their cars, had their Tesla’s suddenly swerve off the road and go over a cliff or into a tree and had set their buildings on fire. The main stream media covers up all of these problems because the 7 men who control the main stream media are Tesla investors. You have never heard about all of the deaths, injuries and disasters that Tesla has caused but we have and we have them all documented. Tesla is still around because of one of the biggest cover-ups you ever saw.
** Guess who else covers up the criminal corruption of Tesla Motors: California Senators Feinstein and Pelosi, Nevada Senator Reed, all of the New York Senators and California Governor Jerry Brown. Why? Because they are investors and campaign finance recipients of Elon Musk’s technology mobster Cartel! That’s right! These scumbag politicians are covering up crimes and life-threatening dangers in order to line their pockets! We told all of this to the FBI’s James Comey but then, you know, he got himself fired and charged with running political protection operations just like we are talking about here!
** Let us tell you about a beautiful young college graduate named Casey Speckman, her whole life was ahead of her. She would still be alive today if her crash had not been in a Tesla. She burned alive because Tesla knew it’s batteries would explode in a crash and Tesla chose profits over safety after being warned about the lithium ion battery dangers.
** The Middle East bad guys are now using lithium ion batteries to blow up airliners because Elon Musk’s lithium ion batteries are so easy to explode. Musk has known this since 2006! We have the papers that prove it!
** Peter Thiel, Google owner Larry Page and other homosexual billionaires help cover-up Musk’s crimes because Musk is sometimes their “special friend”. Do not let billionaires hide the truth from you. Demand a public investigation.
** If you have an ounce of morality, then you will not want to help Musk & Tesla profit from the crony political corruption that created them. Musk exists because he bribes politicians & acts as an illegal campaign financing conduit.
** Why have so many Tesla’s suddenly swerved off the road, over cliffs and into innocent bystanders? Because the CIA software that can take-over a Tesla has been leaked to every 14 year old hacker on Earth! Tesla drivers are dead because Tesla cars can be instantly and easily hacked, taken over and turned into listening devices by any kid with an Android phone.
** When bad news emerges about Musk or Tesla; Google, Kleiner Perkins, Draper Fisher and Goldman Sachs suddenly buy some Tesla stock so the little line on the stock market graph goes up for a few days. At the same time they use their MSM media control to release a BS press release. This is called “pumping the stock” and “covering the hole”. It is a stock market fraud tactic which seeks to hide the fact that Musk’s companies are in a constant state of failure.
** DOT/NHTSA has covered up years of reports about an acceleration surge issue that can suddenly crash your Tesla into walls and drive it off cliffs. It is either a known hacking attack or the effect of WiFi on Tesla electronics. Either can kill you.
** Musk & Tesla are pure evil & exist because of hyper-corruption. You don’t want to contribute to their evil or be part of it in any way. You are funding evil & supporting criminal corruption by buying a Tesla or any Elon Musk owned product like Solar City, Tesla, Space X, Hyperloop, etc.!
** Elon Musk spent more money, than any other car company in history, to do the exact same things that any other car has done, or could do, for 20 times less money. Musk’s Tesla was $100,000.00 over budget, per car, at the time that Musk was handed his crony Dept. of Energy froms by Steven Chu. Musk has no clue how to operate a car company.
** In one lawsuit it is noted that: “…Plaintiff and Tesla both applied for funds at the same time, in the same funding cycle in the same program. Tesla had the historically epic number of horrific issues listed below, which were known to DOE at the time of application, and Plaintiffs had NONE of these issues. How can any court, or rational person, believe that Plaintiffs were not intentionally bypassed, targeted and damaged for political reasons while Tesla was simultaneously approved for political reasons, when the comparative metrics between the two applicants prove the largest merit disparity in the entire recorded history of the U.S. Department of Energy….the singular, and only, review criteria used by Department of Energy officials was: WHICH ONE BRIBED THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE GROUP FOR BARACK OBAMA?!”; Thus proving that Tesla exists because of organized-crime level political corruption.
** Elon Musk’s self-driving “autopilot” feature, which keeps crashing and failing, is his attempt to scam taxpayer cash from Dept. of Transportation and Dept. of Energy public funds. He is only trying to do it to get more free federal cash.
** The inventor of lithium ion batteries has confessed that lithium ion batteries blow up eventually. He says that deadly dendrites plague lithium-ion battery technology. The dendrites accumulate as part of the standard charging and recharging cycle and eventually cause a short circuit that often results in a smoldering or burning battery. These dendrites are destined to eventually blow up most Tesla cars and many electronic devices using lithium ion!
** The CIA’s software designed to take over any Tesla on Earth and kill the driver, passengers and bystanders has been released in the wild and every hacker on Earth can now easily get a copy of it and kill you in your Tesla!
** Ex-employees have leaked faked financial records, evidence of massive click-farm fake social media manipulation and evidence of unreported deaths and accidents. They say that most Tesla’s have one kind of defect or another.
** If you read about the dirty deeds and cocaine dealings with the In-Q-Tel airplanes called “Cocaine 1” & “Cocaine 2”, & the corruption behind the company called In-Q-Tel & Musk’s software programmer who ran “The Silk Road” drug & murder service then you must be concerned that many In-Q-Tel people work for Musk. Why does Musk need dirty druggies & spies on his payroll unless he is running covert drug and business spying activities?
** Ex-employees, Gawker writers and gay lawyers from Covington & Burling have leaked stories that Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, Larry Page, Peter Thiel and others are “butt buddies” and may be involved in “Pizzagate”.
** Musk is anti-American and Anti-Worker Rights and has been caught flying in H1-B cheap offshore labor and exploiting immigrants for his deadly profits. Musk hates unions and worker rights efforts.
** Elon Musk gets the Cobalt chemical to make his lithium ion batteries from slave trade and blood-money corruption in the Congo!
** Tesla Cars are just gay as hell and show the driver to be either a closet homosexual or an arrogant prick.
** The lithium ion batteries that Musk uses also blow up when they naturally encounter Low Energy Nuclear (LENR) effects in the ambient environment. Millions of chemicals don’t blow up from LENR’d but lithium ion does!
** If you are a Democrat then know that Elon Musk cost you the Hillary Clinton campaign because of his payola schemes. If you are a Republican, know that Elon Musk is the epitome of the worst form of DNC crony corruption you ever saw!
** Musk bribed California politicians to give him hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars & resources he never earned or worked for. He only got those crony payola perks handed to him because he operated as an illicit front for corrupt campaign financing for Dianne Feinstein, Jerry Brown, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
** Multiple parties have filed “Demands For The Arrest of Elon Musk” with the FBI, DOJ, AG, FTC, SEC and other law enforcement agencies. It is not likely that Musk, or his companies will survive a full investigation.
** Tesla and Solyndra sit on the same land in Fremont, CA. Solyndra was raided by the FBI for corruption. Tesla SHOULD be raided by the FBI for corruption. Both companies had kick-back crony payola schemes with Senator Dianne Feinstein. She owned the land, lease, HR, construction company and supplier interests and stock for both companies in one of the most massive conflict-of-interest crony financing schemes in U.S. history. Elon Musk and the Feinsteins are corruption partners.
** People who see you in a Tesla think of you as a “Tone Deaf Douchebag”, “Tesla Tool!”, “Arrogant Prick”, “Ostentatious Obama Oaf”, “Sheep”, “Mindless Yuppie Scum”, “Misogynistic Silicon Valley Clone”, “Self-promoting Elitist Douche”, “Fake News Reading Main Stream Boob”, “Naive Idiot” or other bad things.
** Elon Musk is one of the main financiers behind Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton, both of whom have been charged with corruption. Musk endlessly tweets lies & “…No I didn’t do those bad things” BS but nobody else supports him.
** Tesla financial records are “cooked” in a fraudulent manner to make the stock market valuation of Tesla a falsely manipulated factor. Musk uses “pre-orders”, by his own investors, to fake sales and wrote emails to customers asking them to put small deposits down so he could book them as fully paid sales in one of a large number of stock and loan valuation frauds. Musk and his investors practice stock market skims, pump-and-dumps and Flash Boy manipulations.
** Lithium ion batteries are blowing up, starting fires &, generally, destroying people’s homes, cars, electronics & physical health. Boeing was ordered to stop flying the 787 Dreamliner because it’s Lithium ion batteries are catching fire spontaneously. A group of silicon valley venture capitalists forced/leveraged the government to buy & pay for these specific batteries, that they have stock in, in order to benefit their profit margins. Other batteries don’t have these problems. They knew about the dangers from day one, but put greed ahead of safety. There are thousands & thousands of reports of spontaneous lithium ion fires but the VC’s who back lithium ion pay to keep this information hushed up. Millions of these batteries have been recalled for fire risk. The VC’s tried to push as many as they could before they got caught. Now they are caught. These VC’s & the Senators they bribed own stock in lithium mining companies too. HERE IS THE PROOF: HTTP://LITHIUMBATTERYCOVERUP.COM
** Tesla Motors has filed a patent which states the following , THESE ARE TESLA MOTORS WORDS warning about a crisis, the level of which they never disclosed to the consumer: “Thermal runaway is of major concern since a single incident can lead to significant property damage &, in some circumstances, bodily harm or loss of life. When a battery undergoes thermal runaway, it typically emits a large quantity of smoke, jets of flaming liquid electrolyte, & sufficient heat to lead to the combustion & destruction of materials in close proximity to the cell. If the cell undergoing thermal runaway is surrounded by one or more additional cells as is typical in a battery pack, then a single thermal runaway event can quickly lead to the thermal runaway of multiple cells which, in turn, can lead to much more extensive collateral damage. Regardless of whether a single cell or multiple cells are undergoing this phenomenon, if the initial fire is not extinguished immediately, subsequent fires may be caused that dramatically expand the degree of property damage. For example, the thermal runaway of a battery within an unattended laptop will likely result in not only the destruction of the laptop, but also at least partial destruction of its surroundings, e.g., home, office, car, laboratory, etc. If the laptop is on-board an aircraft, for example within the cargo hold or a luggage compartment, the ensuing smoke & fire may lead to an emergency landing or, under more dire conditions, a crash landing. Similarly, the thermal runaway of one or more batteries within the battery pack of a hybrid or electric vehicle may destroy not only the car, but may lead to a car wreck if the car is being driven or the destruction of its surroundings if the car is parked”. See http://whoiselonmusk.com for more…
** Tesla’s own staff, & every fire department, have now admitted that once a lithium ion fire gets started in a Tesla, that it is impossible to extinguish burning lithium ion material. This is Telsa’s own words in THEIR patent filing, (You can look it up online) saying that the risk is monumental. Tesla has 6800 lithium ion batteries, any one of which can “go thermal”, start a chain reaction and blow up all of the rest of the 6800+ deadly batteries! Tesla drivers have been burned alive in thermal globs of flaming lithium ion, plastics & metal. Bystanders have heard their horrific screams of unutterable pain & terror as they were burned alive! Tesla fires can’t be extinguished & the bodies are burned into “unrecognizable lumps of charred flesh”, according to fireman.
** Lithium Ion batteries “go thermal” in peoples pockets, in your notebook, especially in a Tesla & Fisker car. There are tens of thousands of articles documenting this & there is a cover-up by the VC’s that fund these things to keep this fact out-of-sight. Making Lithium Ion batteries poisons the workers who make them. It is a dangerous product that is covered-up by the Obama Administration. Panasonic knows that these batteries are deadly.
** Tesla only exists to exploit Elon Musk’s briberies. The lithium ion batteries blow up when they get: wet, hot, bumped, over-charged, struck by energy fields, exposed to air or squashed. Lithium ion batteries poison the Earth & that they poison & kill the workers that make them. Lithium ion batteries come from war profiteering in Afghan & Bolivian corruption.
** Panasonic is Elon Musk’s partner. Panasonic is one of the most corrupt companies in the world. Panasonic has been charged, on multiple continents with: Product dumping, bribery, collusion, price fixing, anti-trust law violations, racketeering, worker abuse, toxic poisoning of workers, & other crimes. It is no wonder that Elon Musk & Panasonic are partners. Tata Motors executive Karl Slym was killed for exposing this fact.
** Your tax dollars were stolen in order to make Tesla Motors, as part of a political financing kick-back scam. In other words, part of your paycheck was taken away from you in order to buy hookers, rent-boys & private jets for Musk & company.
** Tesla’s are forged in criminal corruption, so anybody who drives a Tesla must be either ignorant, a weasel or one of the corrupt. The whole world now knows all of the facts in this list so you can never plead ignorance to these crimes.
** Telsa’s have a huge amount of highly documented defects. The defects are so extensive that Tesla made buyers sign confidentiality agreements to try to hide how messed up their cars are.
** Tesla’s have killed more people than the main-stream news has reported. The full Tesla death-list is covered up.
** Musk lied about why he wanted to make electric cars, when, in fact, he actually poisons the environment because Tesla investors wanted to exploit toxic minerals & materials which can’t be recycled in a clean manner
** No other electric car has been so mundane, & yet had so many problems with it, since the electric car was first sold in the 1800’s. There is nothing “novel” or “amazing” about the Tesla aside from dime store parlor tricks for PR hype.
** More drunks have crashed Tesla’s, than any other per capita car in the world, per volume of cars made
** Elon Musk’s co-founders, investors, partners, wives, investors, suppliers & employees have sued him for being a fraud &, essentially, called him an “asshole” in court records.
** Elon Musk lied on this Department of Energy funding application and the Obama Administration refuses to allow any federal employees or witnesses to testify to these facts in public due to the devastating potential results of these facts.
** More owners of Tesla’s have been found to cheat on their taxes, & be involved in abuse-based divorces, than almost any other car brand owner. Tesla owners are bad people who rationalize their poor life choices. Owning a Tesla is a red-flag for a tax audit!
** Elon Musk will lie, cheat & steal in order to self-aggrandize & glorify his egotistical mania. Musk has been documented engaging in over 100 lies which were later proven to be false. He has spent tens of millions of dollars to buy fake news about himself on Twitter, Facebook & Google because he is such a mentally disturbed ego-maniac.
** None of Elon Musk’s companies would exist if not for taxpayer funded handouts given to him by corrupt politicians in exchange for illegal campaign finance deals with him & his investors.
** Google, & Tesla, who are financial & political partners, have both been caught spying on consumers & manipulating Internet data in order to cover-up their complicity in huge political corruption & kick-back deals
** Musk took U.S. taxpayer dollars from the government & then hired cheap off-shore labor & fired U.S. Union workers & domestic workers. He lied to & screwed the NUMMI workers that were working at the Fremont plant.
** Musk has put over 18 surveillance devices in the Tesla. Anybody can hack those devices & monitor you. WORSE YET, foreign agents have hacked the Tesla & taken over the controls & driven Tesla’s into bystanders & over cliffs.
** When Erick Strickland was head of the NHTSA he was confronted about DOT safety cover-ups of the Tesla to protect Obama. He quit 48 hours later. The DOT safety cover-ups to protect the Obama campaign finance payola scheme continue to this day. Obama’s Gibbs, Emanual, Plouffe, Axelrod and Carney quit within a week of being threatened with exposure.
** Tesla’s have had a large number of recalls but Elon Musk refuses to call them “recalls”. Tesla’s have had multiple recalls for SEVERE safety dangers. DOT has been told this, in writing, for years, but wont take action in order to protect Obama.
** Elon Musk is a bullshit artist who has no original ideas & wears black-turtle neck shirts (like Elizabeth Homes) to try to create a “cult” around himself & convince the world that he is a “Jesus-like” figure when, in fact, he is a clinical sociopath.
** Tesla is a severe public safety hazard that has been systematically covered up by corrupt politicians.
** Large numbers of Ex-CIA staff and In-Q-Tel spy staff work for Musk. Why does he need spies to build cars?
** Tesla Motors batteries were promoted by those who wished to exploit the Afghanistan War for personal profit by controlling the Afghan lithium mining fields. Kleiner Perkins and Draper Fisher hyped the “…trillions of $ of lithium in Afghanistan.”
** Tesla Motors batteries blow up on their own.
** Tesla Motors batteries blow up when they get wet.
** Tesla Motors batteries fires cannot be put out by any common fire-fighting resources.
** Tesla Motors batteries set themselves on fire.
** Per Federal MSDS disclosure documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit cancer-causing vapors when they burn.
** Tesla Motors Vehicles toxicity poison bystanders, nearby vehicular passengers, airline passengers in planes carrying said batteries in their holds, & environments where such incidents occur.
** Tesla Motors batteries blow up when bumped by the same level of car incident that would, otherwise, only dent a normal car bumper.
** In an accident, when a Tesla rolls over, molten metal & plastic can drip on & burn the occupants alive.
** Tesla has multiple sexual harassment and unsafe work-place lawsuits against the company.
** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit brain damaging chemicals when they burn.
** Tesla is a stock pumping scam to profiteering on stock market peak manipulation at the expense of taxpayers.
** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals, burning, or not, that can damage an unborn fetus.
** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals that can cause lung damage.
** Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals that can cause liver damage.
** Per published lawsuits & news reports, the factories that make Tesla Motors batteries have been charged with the deaths, & potentially fatal illness, of over 1000 workers & the poisoning of nearby towns.
** Tesla Motors batteries become even more dangerous over time, particularly when tasked by electric transportation systems like Hover-boards & Tesla’s. The chemistry in a lithium ion battery changes to become more unstable over time.
** Tesla Motors batteries were never designed to be used in automobiles. Tesla used non-automotive batteries in one of the most dangerous configurations possible.
** Tesla Motors occupants experience higher EMF radiation exposure than gasoline vehicle occupants.
** Elon Musk’s Space X vehicles & Tesla Motors vehicles have both had a higher-than-average number of explosions. This has caused outside experts to doubt Musk’s ability to place safety considerations over his need for hyped-up PR.
** Leaked Sandia National Labs & FAA research videos dramatically demonstrate the unstoppable, horrific, “re-percussive accelerating domino-effect” explosive fire effect of the Tesla Motors batteries.
** Tesla’s own “Superchargers” & home 3-prong chargers have set Tesla’s, homes & businesses on fire.
** Consumer rights groups contacted Erick Strickland, the head of the NHTSA, & charged him with a cover-up. He quit days later. The NHTSA then issued a safety investigation request to Tesla Motors, which would have more publicly exposed these dangers, but the safety investigation was never under-taken due to White House requests & lobbyist bribes, from Tesla, which got the investigation shut down.
** NEPA regulations for the Tesla NUMMI factory in California & the Nevada Tesla “Gigafactory” have been violated relative to environmental safety standards. See http://xyzcase.xyz for details.
** Tesla Motors vehicles are not “Factory Built” “like Ford” builds cars, as Tesla professes. They are hand built in small volumes & subjected to numerous defects. Blogs have documented hundreds of defects, as listed by Tesla owners. Tesla has lost at least one LEMON CAR LAWSUIT for defective manufacturing.
** Tesla’s “showrooms” are often “pop-up” retail storefronts that are in tight-proximity retail centers, putting it’s neighbors at risk of total loss from fire damage.
** Tesla Motors vehicles have been hacked & taken over. Their doors, steering, listening devices & navigation have been taken over by outside parties. Multiple Tesla have suddenly swerved off the road, over cliffs & into other vehicles, killing bystanders & Tesla drivers.
** Three Tesla top engineers & two competing senior executives, all of whom had whistle-blown on Tesla, who were in perfect health one day, suddenly died mysteriously the next day.
** Multiple employees, founders, investors, marital partners, suppliers & others have sued Tesla Motors, &/or it’s senior executives for fraud. Musk had nothing to do with creating Tesla. He ran a hostile take-over of Tesla from the founders.
** In addition to suing him, many of his former staff & partners have described Musk as an “Arrogant Prick”.
** Main-Stream Media (MSM) have agreed not to provide news coverage of the deadly defects of the Tesla because the MSM are owned by the same politicians who own Tesla Motors. It is now legal to sue The New York Times for hiding these deadly defects, though, particularly if your family member was injured or killed because they covered-up the danger for political reasons.
** If you think the above bullet-points are bad there are over a 1000 more. Find the book “Is Elon Musk A Fraud” online or visit https://stopelonfromfailingagain.com/ or thousands of other sites that expose the truth about Musk & Tesla!
If you think these things are bad, send this document to the FBI, The FTC, The GAO, The SEC, The FCC, U.S. Congress (they work for you and get paid, from your tax dollars, to help you). Also send this to all of the independent news outlets and ask them for a written response to your question of: “What are you going to do about this?”. Demand an answer and share your answer from them on social media!
p style=”font-weight:normal;line-height:120%;orphans:2;widows:2;” align=”left”>
Match.com and Tinder have created a horrible state of sex diseases in San Francisco. Even The Mayor, A Senator and 4 Supervisors have sex diseases. What can be done?
Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men from Hate Speech But Not Black Children
Mark HitlerBerg Loves To Censor Things He Can Rationalize!
A trove of internal documents sheds light on the algorithms that Facebook’s censors use to differentiate between hate speech and legitimate political expression.
by Julia Angwin, ProPublica, and Hannes Grassegger, special to ProPublica, June 28, 2017, 5 a.m.
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Facebook, speaks at an event ahead of the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, in February 2016. (Pau Barrena/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
In the wake of a terrorist attack in London earlier this month, a U.S. congressman wrote a Facebook post in which he called for the slaughter of “radicalized” Muslims. “Hunt them, identify them, and kill them,” declared U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican. “Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.”
Higgins’ plea for violent revenge went untouched by Facebook workers who scour the social network deleting offensive speech.
But a May posting on Facebook by Boston poet and Black Lives Matter activist Didi Delgado drew a different response.
“All white people are racist. Start from this reference point, or you’ve already failed,” Delgado wrote. The post was removed and her Facebook account was disabled for seven days.
A trove of internal documents reviewed by ProPublica sheds new light on the secret guidelines that Facebook’s censors use to distinguish between hate speech and legitimate political expression. The documents reveal the rationale behind seemingly inconsistent decisions. For instance, Higgins’ incitement to violence passed muster because it targeted a specific sub-group of Muslims — those that are “radicalized” — while Delgado’s post was deleted for attacking whites in general.
Over the past decade, the company has developed hundreds of rules, drawing elaborate distinctions between what should and shouldn’t be allowed, in an effort to make the site a safe place for its nearly 2 billion users. The issue of how Facebook monitors this content has become increasingly prominent in recent months, with the rise of “fake news” — fabricated stories that circulated on Facebook like “Pope Francis Shocks the World, Endorses Donald Trump For President, Releases Statement” — and growing concern that terrorists are using social media for recruitment.
While Facebook was credited during the 2010-2011 “Arab Spring” with facilitating uprisings against authoritarian regimes, the documents suggest that, at least in some instances, the company’s hate-speech rules tend to favor elites and governments over grassroots activists and racial minorities. In so doing, they serve the business interests of the global company, which relies on national governments not to block its service to their citizens.
Facebook trains its censors to delete hate speech against “protected categories,” including white males, but to allow attacks on “subsets” such as female drivers and black children.
One Facebook rule, which is cited in the documents but that the company said is no longer in effect, banned posts that praise the use of “violence to resist occupation of an internationally recognized state.” The company’s workforce of human censors, known as content reviewers, has deleted posts by activists and journalists in disputed territories such as Palestine, Kashmir, Crimea and Western Sahara.
One document trains content reviewers on how to apply the company’s global hate speech algorithm. The slide identifies three groups: female drivers, black children and white men. It asks: Which group is protected from hate speech? The correct answer: white men.
The reason is that Facebook deletes curses, slurs, calls for violence and several other types of attacks only when they are directed at “protected categories”—based on race, sex, gender identity, religious affiliation, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation and serious disability/disease. It gives users broader latitude when they write about “subsets” of protected categories. White men are considered a group because both traits are protected, while female drivers and black children, like radicalized Muslims, are subsets, because one of their characteristics is not protected. (The exact rules are in the slide show below.)
The Facebook Rules
Facebook has used these rules to train its “content reviewers” to decide whether to delete or allow posts. Facebook says the exact wording of its rules may have changed slightly in more recent versions. ProPublica recreated the slides.
Behind this seemingly arcane distinction lies a broader philosophy. Unlike American law, which permits preferences such as affirmative action for racial minorities and women for the sake of diversity or redressing discrimination, Facebook’s algorithm is designed to defend all races and genders equally.
“Sadly,” the rules are “incorporating this color-blindness idea which is not in the spirit of why we have equal protection,” said Danielle Citron, a law professor and expert on information privacy at the University of Maryland. This approach, she added, will “protect the people who least need it and take it away from those who really need it.”
But Facebook says its goal is different — to apply consistent standards worldwide. “The policies do not always lead to perfect outcomes,” said Monika Bickert, head of global policy management at Facebook. “That is the reality of having policies that apply to a global community where people around the world are going to have very different ideas about what is OK to share.”
Facebook’s rules constitute a legal world of their own. They stand in sharp contrast to the United States’ First Amendment protections of free speech, which courts have interpreted to allow exactly the sort of speech and writing censored by the company’s hate speech algorithm. But they also differ — for example, in permitting postings that deny the Holocaust — from more restrictive European standards.
The company has long had programs to remove obviously offensive material like child pornography from its stream of images and commentary. Recent articles in the Guardian and Süddeutsche Zeitung have detailed the difficult choices that Facebook faces regarding whether to delete posts containing graphic violence, child abuse, revenge porn and self-mutilation.
The challenge of policing political expression is even more complex. The documents reviewed by ProPublica indicate, for example, that Donald Trump’s posts about his campaign proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States violated the company’s written policies against “calls for exclusion” of a protected group. As The Wall Street Journal reported last year, Facebook exempted Trump’s statements from its policies at the order of Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s founder and chief executive.
The company recently pledged to nearly double its army of censors to 7,500, up from 4,500, in response to criticism of a video posting of a murder. Their work amounts to what may well be the most far-reaching global censorship operation in history. It is also the least accountable: Facebook does not publish the rules it uses to determine what content to allow and what to delete.
Users whose posts are removed are not usually told what rule they have broken, and they cannot generally appeal Facebook’s decision. Appeals are currently only available to people whose profile, group or page is removed.
The company has begun exploring adding an appeals process for people who have individual pieces of content deleted, according to Bickert. “I’ll be the first to say that we’re not perfect every time,” she said.
Facebook is not required by U.S. law to censor content. A 1996 federal law gave most tech companies, including Facebook, legal immunity for the content users post on their services. The law, section 230 of the Telecommunications Act, was passed after Prodigy was sued and held liable for defamation for a post written by a user on a computer message board.
The law freed up online publishers to host online forums without having to legally vet each piece of content before posting it, the way that a news outlet would evaluate an article before publishing it. But early tech companies soon realized that they still needed to supervise their chat rooms to prevent bullying and abuse that could drive away users.
America Online convinced thousands of volunteers to police its chat rooms in exchange for free access to its service. But as more of the world connected to the internet, the job of policing became more difficult and companies started hiring workers to focus on it exclusively. Thus the job of content moderator — now often called content reviewer — was born.
In 2004, attorney Nicole Wong joined Google and persuaded the company to hire its first-ever team of reviewers, who responded to complaints and reported to the legal department. Google needed “a rational set of policies and people who were trained to handle requests,” for its online forum called Groups, she said.
Google’s purchase of YouTube in 2006 made deciding what content was appropriate even more urgent. “Because it was visual, it was universal,” Wong said.
While Google wanted to be as permissive as possible, she said, it soon had to contend with controversies such as a video mocking the King of Thailand, which violated Thailand’s laws against insulting the king. Wong visited Thailand and was impressed by the nation’s reverence for its monarch, so she reluctantly agreed to block the video — but only for computers located in Thailand.
Since then, selectively banning content by geography — called “geo-blocking” — has become a more common request from governments. “I don’t love traveling this road of geo-blocking,” Wong said, but “it’s ended up being a decision that allows companies like Google to operate in a lot of different places.”
For social networks like Facebook, however, geo-blocking is difficult because of the way posts are shared with friends across national boundaries. If Facebook geo-blocks a user’s post, it would only appear in the news feeds of friends who live in countries where the geo-blocking prohibition doesn’t apply. That can make international conversations frustrating, with bits of the exchange hidden from some participants.
As a result, Facebook has long tried to avoid using geography-specific rules when possible, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. However, it does geo-block in some instances, such as when it complied with a request from France to restrict access within its borders to a photo taken after the Nov. 13, 2015, terrorist attack at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris.
Bickert said Facebook takes into consideration the laws in countries where it operates, but doesn’t always remove content at a government’s request. “If there is something that violates a country’s law but does not violate our standards,” Bickert said, “we look at who is making that request: Is it the appropriate authority? Then we check to see if it actually violates the law. Sometimes we will make that content unavailable in that country only.”
Facebook’s goal is to create global rules. “We want to make sure that people are able to communicate in a borderless way,” Bickert said.
Founded in 2004, Facebook began as a social network for college students. As it spread beyond campus, Facebook began to use content moderation as a way to compete with the other leading social network of that era, MySpace.
MySpace had positioned itself as the nightclub of the social networking world, offering profile pages that users could decorate with online glitter, colorful layouts and streaming music. It didn’t require members to provide their real names and was home to plenty of nude and scantily clad photographs. And it was being investigated by law-enforcement agents across the country who worried it was being used by sexual predators to prey on children. (In a settlement with 49 state attorneys general, MySpace later agreed to strengthen protections for younger users.)
By comparison, Facebook was the buttoned-down Ivy League social network — all cool grays and blues. Real names and university affiliations were required. Chris Kelly, who joined Facebook in 2005 and was its first general counsel, said he wanted to make sure Facebook didn’t end up in law enforcement’s crosshairs, like MySpace.
“We were really aggressive about saying we are a no-nudity platform,” he said.
The company also began to tackle hate speech. “We drew some difficult lines while I was there — Holocaust denial being the most prominent,” Kelly said. After an internal debate, the company decided to allow Holocaust denials but reaffirmed its ban on group-based bias, which included anti-Semitism. Since Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism frequently went together, he said, the perpetrators were often suspended regardless.
“I’ve always been a pragmatist on this stuff,” said Kelly, who left Facebook in 2010. “Even if you take the most extreme First Amendment positions, there are still limits on speech.”
By 2008, the company had begun expanding internationally but its censorship rulebook was still just a single page with a list of material to be excised, such as images of nudity and Hitler. “At the bottom of the page it said, ‘Take down anything else that makes you feel uncomfortable,’” said Dave Willner, who joined Facebook’s content team that year.
Willner, who reviewed about 15,000 photos a day, soon found the rules were not rigorous enough. He and some colleagues worked to develop a coherent philosophy underpinning the rules, while refining the rules themselves. Soon he was promoted to head the content policy team.
By the time he left Facebook in 2013, Willner had shepherded a 15,000-word rulebook that remains the basis for many of Facebook’s content standards today.
“There is no path that makes people happy,” Willner said. “All the rules are mildly upsetting.” Because of the volume of decisions — many millions per day — the approach is “more utilitarian than we are used to in our justice system,” he said. “It’s fundamentally not rights-oriented.”
A swastika was added to this picture of founder Mark Zuckerberg to show that Facebook rules permit “display [of] hate symbols for political messaging.”
Willner’s then-boss, Jud Hoffman, who has since left Facebook, said that the rules were based on Facebook’s mission of “making the world more open and connected.” Openness implies a bias toward allowing people to write or post what they want, he said.
But Hoffman said the team also relied on the principle of harm articulated by John Stuart Mill, a 19th-century English political philosopher. It states “that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” That led to the development of Facebook’s “credible threat” standard, which bans posts that describe specific actions that could threaten others, but allows threats that are not likely to be carried out.
Eventually, however, Hoffman said “we found that limiting it to physical harm wasn’t sufficient, so we started exploring how free expression societies deal with this.”
The rules developed considerable nuance. There is a ban against pictures of Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character often used by “alt-right” white supremacists to perpetrate racist memes, but swastikas are allowed under a rule that permits the “display [of] hate symbols for political messaging.” In the documents examined by ProPublica, which are used to train content reviewers, this rule is illustrated with a picture of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg that has been manipulated to apply a swastika to his sleeve.
The documents state that Facebook relies, in part, on the U.S. State Department’s list of designated terrorist organizations, which includes groups such as al-Qaida, the Taliban and Boko Haram. But not all groups deemed terrorist by one country or another are included: A recent investigation by the Pakistan newspaper Dawn found that 41 of the 64 terrorist groups banned in Pakistan were operational on Facebook.
There is also a secret list, referred to but not included in the documents, of groups designated as hate organizations that are banned from Facebook. That list apparently doesn’t include many Holocaust denial and white supremacist sites that are up on Facebook to this day, such as a group called “Alt-Reich Nation.” A member of that group was recently charged with murdering a black college student in Maryland.
As the rules have multiplied, so have exceptions to them. Facebook’s decision not to protect subsets of protected groups arose because some subgroups such as “female drivers” didn’t seem especially sensitive. The default position was to allow free speech, according to a person familiar with the decision-making.
After the wave of Syrian immigrants began arriving in Europe, Facebook added a special “quasi-protected” category for migrants, according to the documents. They are only protected against calls for violence and dehumanizing generalizations, but not against calls for exclusion and degrading generalizations that are not dehumanizing. So, according to one document, migrants can be referred to as “filthy” but not called “filth.” They cannot be likened to filth or disease “when the comparison is in the noun form,” the document explains.
Facebook also added an exception to its ban against advocating for anyone to be sent to a concentration camp. “Nazis should be sent to a concentration camp,” is allowed, the documents state, because Nazis themselves are a hate group.
The rule against posts that support violent resistance against a foreign occupier was developed because “we didn’t want to be in a position of deciding who is a freedom fighter,” Willner said. Facebook has since dropped the provision and revised its definition of terrorism to include nongovernmental organizations that carry out premeditated violence “to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim,” according to a person familiar with the rules.
The Facebook policy appears to have had repercussions in many of the at least two dozen disputed territories around the world. When Russia occupied Crimea in March 2014, many Ukrainians experienced a surge in Facebook banning posts and suspending profiles. Facebook’s director of policy for the region, Thomas Myrup Kristensen, acknowledged at the time that it “found a small number of accounts where we had incorrectly removed content. In each case, this was due to language that appeared to be hate speech but was being used in an ironic way. In these cases, we have restored the content.”
Katerina Zolotareva, 34, a Kiev-based Ukrainian working in communications, has been blocked so often that she runs four accounts under her name. Although she supported the “Euromaidan” protests in February 2014 that antagonized Russia, spurring its military intervention in Crimea, she doesn’t believe that Facebook took sides in the conflict. “There is war in almost every field of Ukrainian life,” she says, “and when war starts, it also starts on Facebook.”
In Western Sahara, a disputed territory occupied by Morocco, a group of journalists called Equipe Media say their account was disabled by Facebook, their primary way to reach the outside world. They had to open a new account, which remains active.
“We feel we have never posted anything against any law,” said Mohammed Mayarah, the group’s general coordinator. “We are a group of media activists. We have the aim to break the Moroccan media blockade imposed since it invaded and occupied Western Sahara.”
In Israel, which captured territory from its neighbors in a 1967 war and has occupied it since, Palestinian groups are blocked so often that they have their own hashtag, #FbCensorsPalestine, for it. Last year, for instance, Facebook blocked the accounts of several editors for two leading Palestinian media outlets from the West Bank — Quds News Network and Sheebab News Agency. After a couple of days, Facebook apologized and un-blocked the journalists’ accounts. Earlier this year, Facebook blocked the account of Fatah, the Palestinian Authority’s ruling party — then un-blocked it and apologized.
Last year India cracked down on protesters in Kashmir, shooting pellet guns at them and shutting off cellphone service. Local insurgents are seeking autonomy for Kashmir, which is also caught in a territorial tussle between India and Pakistan. Posts of Kashmir activists were being deleted, and members of a group called the Kashmir Solidarity Network found that all of their Facebook accounts had been blocked on the same day.
Ather Zia, a member of the network and a professor of anthropology at the University of Northern Colorado, said that Facebook restored her account without explanation after two weeks. “We do not trust Facebook any more,” she said. “I use Facebook, but it’s almost this idea that we will be able to create awareness but then we might not be on it for long.”
The rules are one thing. How they’re applied is another. Bickert said Facebook conducts weekly audits of every single content reviewer’s work to ensure that its rules are being followed consistently. But critics say that reviewers, who have to decide on each post within seconds, may vary in both interpretation and vigilance.
Facebook users who don’t mince words in criticizing racism and police killings of racial minorities say that their posts are often taken down. Two years ago, Stacey Patton, a journalism professor at historically black Morgan State University in Baltimore, posed a provocative question on her Facebook page. She asked why “it’s not a crime when White freelance vigilantes and agents of ‘the state’ are serial killers of unarmed Black people, but when Black people kill each other then we are ‘animals’ or ‘criminals.’”
Although it doesn’t appear to violate Facebook’s policies against hate speech, her post was immediately removed, and her account was disabled for three days. Facebook didn’t tell her why. “My posts get deleted about once a month,” said Patton, who often writes about racial issues. She said she also is frequently put in Facebook “jail” — locked out of her account for a period of time after a posting that breaks the rules.
“It’s such emotional violence,” Patton said. “Particularly as a black person, we’re always having these discussions about mass incarceration, and then here’s this fiber-optic space where you can express yourself. Then you say something that some anonymous person doesn’t like and then you’re in ‘jail.’”
Didi Delgado, whose post stating that “white people are racist” was deleted, has been banned from Facebook so often that she has set up an account on another service called Patreon, where she posts the content that Facebook suppressed. In May, she deplored the increasingly common Facebook censorship of black activists in an article for Medium titled “Mark Zuckerberg Hates Black People.”
Facebook also locked out Leslie Mac, a Michigan resident who runs a service called SafetyPinBox where subscribers contribute financially to “the fight for black liberation,” according to her site. Her offense was writing a post stating “White folks. When racism happens in public — YOUR SILENCE IS VIOLENCE.”
The post does not appear to violate Facebook’s policies. Facebook apologized and restored her account after TechCrunch wrote an article about Mac’s punishment. Since then, Mac has written many other outspoken posts. But, “I have not had a single peep from Facebook,” she said, while “not a single one of my black female friends who write about race or social justice have not been banned.”
“My takeaway from the whole thing is: If you get publicity, they clean it right up,” Mac said. Even so, like most of her friends, she maintains a separate Facebook account in case her main account gets blocked again.
Negative publicity has spurred other Facebook turnabouts as well. Consider the example of the iconic news photograph of a young naked girl running from a napalm bomb during the Vietnam War. Kate Klonick, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale Law School who has spent two years studying censorship operations at tech companies, said the photo had likely been deleted by Facebook thousands of times for violating its ban on nudity.
But last year, Facebook reversed itself after Norway’s leading newspaper published a front-page open letter to Zuckerberg accusing him of “abusing his power” by deleting the photo from the newspaper’s Facebook account.
Klonick said that while she admires Facebook’s dedication to policing content on its website, she fears it is evolving into a place where celebrities, world leaders and other important people “are disproportionately the people who have the power to update the rules.”
In December 2015, a month after terrorist attacks in Paris killed 130 people, the European Union began pressuring tech companies to work harder to prevent the spread of violent extremism online.
After a year of negotiations, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube agreed to the European Union’s hate speech code of conduct, which commits them to review and remove the majority of valid complaints about illegal content within 24 hours and to be audited by European regulators. The first audit, in December, found that the companies were only reviewing 40 percent of hate speech within 24 hours, and only removing 28 percent of it. Since then, the tech companies have shortened their response times to reports of hate speech and increased the amount of content they are deleting, prompting criticism from free-speech advocates that too much is being censored.
Now the German government is considering legislation that would allow social networks such as Facebook to be fined up to 50 million euros if they don’t remove hate speech and fake news quickly enough. Facebook recently posted an article assuring German lawmakers that it is deleting about 15,000 hate speech posts a month. Worldwide, over the last two months, Facebook deleted about 66,000 hate speech posts per week, vice president Richard Allan said in a statement Tuesday on the company’s site.
Among posts that Facebook didn’t delete were Donald Trump’s comments on Muslims. Days after the Paris attacks, Trump, then running for president, posted on Facebook “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Candidate Trump’s posting — which has come back to haunt him in court decisions voiding his proposed travel ban — appeared to violate Facebook’s rules against “calls for exclusion” of a protected religious group. Zuckerberg decided to allow it because it was part of the political discourse, according to people familiar with the situation.
However, one person close to Facebook’s decision-making said Trump may also have benefited from the exception for sub-groups. A Muslim ban could be interpreted as being directed against a sub-group, Muslim immigrants, and thus might not qualify as hate speech against a protected category.
Hannes Grassegger is a reporter for Das Magazin and Reportagen Magazine based in Zurich.
Like this story? Sign up for our daily newsletter to get more of our best work.
Julia Angwin is a senior reporter at ProPublica. From 2000 to 2013, she was a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where she led a privacy investigative team that was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Reporting in 2011 and won a Gerald Loeb Award in 2010.
|A strange incident in a Tesla Model X happened in China last month when the airbags of the all-electric SUV deployed at a red light without any impact.
Tesla China said that it was its first case of airbag inflation without impact worldwide and while the company would like to investigate it, the inspection of the vehicle hasn’t been possible as the owner and the automaker are negotiating access to the Model X.
In Hangzhou, eastern China, the Hangzhou Net (Chinese) reported yesterday the owner’s version of the incident. Ms. Ma was stopped at a red light in her new Model X with her husband and three other passengers when they claim that all the airbags inside the vehicles inflated at the same time causing injuries to two of the passengers… said Fred Lambert, a notorious Tesla shill and Elon Musk Apologist
|TESLA BLOWS ITS AIRBAGS OFF FOR NO REASON. ANOTHER TAKATA-LIKE CAR DISASTER?|
|2017-06-27 08:29:27 杭州网|
INJURED TESLA PASSENGERS: