OMG Tech Giants so Leftist: Bolivarian news outlet TeleSUR again banned from Facebook without reason

Trotsky

Banned
Banned
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
34,432
Reaction score
15,874
TeleSUR is a Latin American media outlet funded by the governments of Venezuela, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Bolivia. The channel was founded in 2005 by leftist journalists who had been marginalized by existing Latin American media giants whose constant and often shameless right-wing slant was best displayed when Latin American corporate media channels (such as the ones that publicly called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez in 2002 and reported on his attempted ouster as an organic revolution of the people). They intended the channel to represent a voice to the Latin American left.

Today, teleSUR mostly just does puff pieces and its quality of content has wavered a bit, but I've personally never seen it post anything disinformational or offense, that's for sure.

teleSUR English's page has been removed from Facebook for the second time this year without any specific reason being provided. It should be noted that the first time this occurred back in January 2018, Facebook did NOT provide any explanation in spite of our best efforts to understand their rationale. This is an alarming development in light of the recent shutting down of pages that don't fit a mainstream narrative.

6ad77f6f-6223-4893-ac47-53b3aedff309.jpg_158727005.jpg

This is currently the only communication we have received from Facebook:

"Hello,

Your Page "teleSUR English" has been removed for violating our Terms of Use. A Facebook Page is a distinct presence used solely for business or promotional purposes. Among other things, Pages that are hateful, threatening or obscene are not allowed. We also take down Pages that attack an individual or group, or that are set up by an unauthorised individual. If your Page was removed for any of the above reasons, it will not be reinstated. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in the permanent loss of your account.

The Facebook Team"

Shortly after the news, the administrator of Revolution News informed from his personal Facebook page that he had received a warning from Facebook seconds after he had scheduled this very article to go on the Facebook page of Revolution News.

Meanwhile, followers and supporters of teleSUR English sent out tweets and posts on Facebook and Twitters and other social media websites denouncing the unexplained action by Facebook and arguing that such move is rooted into Facebook's own bias against outlets and news organizations that do not fit within the mainstream media landscape.
View image on Twitter


Max Blumenthal: Facebook has just deleted the page of @telesurenglish. A network source tells me FB justified eliminating the page on the vague basis of "violation of terms." The NATO-backed @DFRLab is currently assisting FB's purge. This is deeply disturbing.


Also, several news outlets such as RT and Venezuelanalysis, which its own Facebook page was removed briefly last week, Democracy Now!and others reported on the news and expressed concern over the removal of teleSUR English page.
 
One could say that the establishment is neither right or left, but all about consolidating power and play the peasants against each other, while robbing us dumb, dead and blind in the process!
 
One could say that the establishment is neither right or left, but all about to consolidate power and play the peasants against each other, while robbing us dumb, dead and blind in the process!

The establishment? That includes private tech companies and media cabals now too?

But if corporations are part of the establishment....and Trump was elected due in part to usage of Facebook data and ads....and Trump thereafter deregulated corporations and gave windfalls to shareholders.....is Trump a part of the establishment? Was he the Manchurian establishment candidate, while Hillary was the populist we needed?


Anyways, in all seriousness, the "establishment" in American politics is a pretty vague term. The only identifiable establishment are long-sitting members of Congress, and they can be voted out.

And corporate cabals are categorically right-wing, just as a matter of existence.
 
Last edited:
I've seen pieces by them, they're full on Communist.
 
I've seen pieces by them, they're full on Communist.

Well, no, since they don't promote communism and even the patronizing countries aren't communist countries in either name or doctrine. But they are supportive of nominally leftist regimes, most notably Venezuela's current government.
 
The establishment? That includes private tech companies and media cabals now too?

But if corporations are part of the establishment....and Trump was elected due in part to usage of Facebook data and ads....and Trump thereafter deregulated corporations and gave windfalls to shareholders.....is Trump a part of the establishment? Was he the Manchurian establishment candidate, while Hillary was the populist we needed?


Anyways, in all seriousness, the "establishment" in American politics is a pretty vague term. The only identifiable establishment are long-sitting members of Congress, and they can be voted out.

And corporate cabals are categorically right-wing, just as a matter of existence.

The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organisation. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions.

The American Sociological Association states that the term is often used by those protesting a small group that dominates a larger organization. For example, in 1968, a group of academics set up the "Sociology Liberation Movement" to repudiate the leadership of the American Sociological Association, which they referred to as the "Establishment in American sociology".[1]

In fact, any relatively small class or group of people having control can be referred to as The Establishment; and conversely, in the jargon of sociology, anyone who does not belong to The Establishment may be labelled an "outsider".[2][3]

Anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment ideologies tend to view establishments as illegitimate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment
 
Well, no, since they don't promote communism and even the patronizing countries aren't communist countries in either name or doctrine. But they are supportive of nominally leftist regimes, most notably Venezuela's current government.
Fair point, I'll redact that and simply say they are the furtherest left media I've ever seen.
 
I think it is hilarious that we think of tech companies as being of the left, when the NSA couldn't exist without being in bed with said tech companies.

In what way is a security state made up of private and public organizations represent anything in the realm of classic liberalism?
 
The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organisation. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions.

The American Sociological Association states that the term is often used by those protesting a small group that dominates a larger organization. For example, in 1968, a group of academics set up the "Sociology Liberation Movement" to repudiate the leadership of the American Sociological Association, which they referred to as the "Establishment in American sociology".[1]

In fact, any relatively small class or group of people having control can be referred to as The Establishment; and conversely, in the jargon of sociology, anyone who does not belong to The Establishment may be labelled an "outsider".[2][3]

Anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment ideologies tend to view establishments as illegitimate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

Its usage is still very nonsensical, politically.

Fair point, I'll redact that and simply say they are the furtherest left media I've ever seen.

Haha, that's fair. Although as a matter of practice it has boxed out further left groups that are hostile to the Maduro government.

In what way is a security state made up of private and public organizations represent anything in the realm of classic liberalism?

@Jack V Savage could answer this better than I, but I would say private for-profit entities in bed with government is absolutely inevitable in a classically liberal vacuum. When you distribute money and power to private entities, deregulate their actions, and minimize the ability of government to control them, they eventually penetrate and reform government in their image and interests, authoritarianism and all.

So to call corporations leftist is nonsensical. To call them socially liberal is barely coherent (since they can only take on social views to the extent that their profit motivations allow). To call them classically liberal? Yeah, that works
 
Its usage is still very nonsensical, politically.



Haha, that's fair. Although as a matter of practice it has boxed out further left groups that are hostile to the Maduro government.



@Jack V Savage could answer this better than I, but I would say private for-profit entities in bed with government is absolutely inevitable in a classically liberal vacuum. When you distribute money and power to private entities, deregulate their actions, and minimize the ability of government to control them, they eventually penetrate and reform government in their image and interests, authoritarianism and all.

This is where neo-liberalism is a lie. Classic liberals believed in deregulating things on a micro level, not a macro one.

On a macro level, classic liberals are very much authoritarian.
 
So Facebook took a page nobody ever heard in its english form. Spanish version still up.
 
Well this proves that Silicon Valley doesn't silence conservatives
 
Good screw bolivia. And pray for regime change in venezuela, bolivia and cuba. The people need it.
 
Last edited:
I did give one of my nutjob "friends" on Facebook props for also posting about this and being against it. So at least the alt-right are being consistent with condemning censorship in general, not just stuff he agrees with

*His wife is pretty cool and good friends with my wife. Shame she married a conspiracy nut that I agreed to play nice with so my wife could spend more time with one of her better gal friends. We talk about football, and things go fine (aside from anthem). Anything else and I put all my subject changing skills to work
 
@Jack V Savage could answer this better than I, but I would say private for-profit entities in bed with government is absolutely inevitable in a classically liberal vacuum. When you distribute money and power to private entities, deregulate their actions, and minimize the ability of government to control them, they eventually penetrate and reform government in their image and interests, authoritarianism and all.

So to call corporations leftist is nonsensical. To call them socially liberal is barely coherent (since they can only take on social views to the extent that their profit motivations allow). To call them classically liberal? Yeah, that works

No way. Classic liberals were against domination and against coercion. A private corporation is obviously tyrannical and coerces its employees into obeying orders or starving. Corporations of the power and magnitude of today would certainly be against everything they stood for.

Adam Smith actually advocated for state intervention in several arenas and was very much in favor of equality:

https://freedomthistime.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/the-real-adam-smith/
 
Tech companies act like they're on the left because that's how they seem 'cool' and 'down with the kids' which is an important part of their appeal. The reality is any company that is concerned with making billions of dollars in profit could never really be described as a socialist undertaking.
 
Today, teleSUR mostly just does puff pieces and its quality of content has wavered a bit, but I've personally never seen it post anything disinformational or offense, that's for sure.

Now it makes perfect sense why your view is so tragically warped in the Venezuela mega thread.

According to the burning dumpster that is TeleSUR, neither Chavez nor Maduro ever did anything wrong with their excellent Socialist economic policies, that sham of an election in Caracas is 100% legitimate, and the deepening humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is just false rumors completely made up by the evil American empire and their OAS puppets. Is that the gist of it?

Let's call it what it is: This shitty site is nowhere near a "news outlet". It's 100% a government mouthpiece, with the primary function being to parrot what ever their socialist dictators say, no matter how much the people are suffering.
 
Last edited:
I trust Russia Today more than TeleSUR.
 
Back
Top