Category Archives: internet safety

Famous Youtuber under FBI investigation?

Being a “celebrity” on Youtube often places a person into the “spotlight.” While this is usually a good form of problicity, for one Youtuber, this is far from that. Recently, the famous (infamous) Youtuber, Onision (Greg Daniels) has not only gotten the attention of journalist Chris Hansen, he has apparantly gotten the attention of the FBI. Allegations ranging from sexual acts, grooming, to abuse, it appears that this is one Youtuber who may not be around much longer. This article will be evaluating the situation revolving around this individual, we will also be discussing the various accusations against Greg.

Grooming and abuse

The accusations against Greg Daniels (Onision,) are disturbing to say the least. In fact, they were enough to get the attention of journalist, Chris Hansen. When interviewing varous victims, Hansen learned that Onision treaded the line of legality when it came to women. In every interview conducted, the victims explained how they were, at the time, 16-18 years of age at the time of meeting Greg. In one instance, Greg met a young girl, approx 16 years of age, at a hotel. Allegedly within minutes they were having sexual relations. To see this interview, click the link provided here.

In every interview conducted by Hansen, the common themes are: Greg met the girls prior to them being 18yo. Greg verbally (and potentially physically) abused them, he used various isolation and manipulation tactics to gain and hold control of the niave women. Beyond the above mentioned, the disturbing theme of grooming comes into play. One such example of this behavior is in how Greg would often pressure the teens into sex. If they were to reject him, he would simply find another method to which he would apply the said pressure.

in 2009 Greg’s then wife, Shiloh had a complete mental breakdown. This was a breakdown that the infamous Youtuber posted onto his channel and would later use to smear the young woman. Shiloh, prior (and post) Onision, was a very well off Canadian based singer. Upon getting into a relationship with Greg, she was isolated, forced to move out of Canada, and would later lose her music contracts; as you could imagine, years of this, and various abuses, would cause any rational person to “snap,” and snapped she did.

In regards to grooming, nothing mentioned above is new. It’s common for a groomer to isolate the target from family, friends, and even the things that are familiar to them. Often, once this is accomplished, the abuse begins. The objective with the abuse is to “break” a person, tear down their self-esteem. With their self-esteem broken, this reduces the chances of the victim leaving. In most cases, the victim feels as if they deserve what is being done, this is the best they can do, and the tragic list goes on. However, for some victims, such as in the case of Onision, the victims break away from the abuse.

Hansen vs. Onision

As mentioned above, Chris Hansen has now been investigating Greg. According to him, the FBI have also been conducting an investigation. Thus far, Hansen has interviewed, at minimum, a dozen of Greg’s former victims. Each story reveals the same disturbing trends: Isolation, verbal abuse, manipulation, and barely legal sexual acts. Another common accusation, though unconfirmed, is that Greg may had potentially recorded such acts. We mentioned that Onision had began a relationship with the, then teenaged girl, Shiloh. What we hadn’t mentioned was the two had met in PA., where they had sexual intercourse. During this time, the police had been called, the room was raided, and the two were found laying on the hotel’s bed. Next to the bed stood various electronics used for recording, though at this time, nothing had been apparantly recording.

Because of Hansen’s involvement, Greg has obviously gotten a lot of “unwanted” attention. However, this attention is warranted. In a recent video, clips can viewed to which Greg explains how a 16yo girl (child) flew herself to their house just to visit Onision’s wife. The video in discussion is here. According to the Youtuber, “no funny business” had occured during this visit. However, we have learned that the claim is very likely to be untrue.

Review

The case is still very much open. With that, we are going to continue monitoring and watching as new information becomes available. As we learn more about this case, and the potential involvement of the FBI, we will be doing update articles. For now, we will leave it to this. Rather you know of this man or not, it is abundantly clear that something disturbing is occuring within his house. While we normally take a neutral stance to these sort of accusations, the overwhelming amount of evidence, and victims, strongly implicates truth to the accusation.

Advertisements

Corrections (Insider report)

Disclaimer:

This article was composed based on information provided to us. We will not reveal the source nor will we reveal the State to which the source worked. We are doing this for the protection of the individual legally as well as from those within the department who may not agree with this article. War on Corruption takes no responsibility for the information provided, we are merely sharing what was provided to us.

Introduction

In many ways correctional institutions are contraversial. Rather it be in how offenders are treated, the quality of life, or the occasional violence, these locations have, upon many occasions, sparked outrage. We often hear about how life is for those imprisoned within these institutions, but we rarely hear about those who are (or were) employed. We recently got a bit of insight into how this agency works, the behind the scenes if you will, into the life of the employees. For protective reasons, we have omitted the specific agency’s location as well as the former employee, the reasons will become abundantly clear throughout the article.

Life away from work

When working, it is expected to uphold the policies and guidelines of your employer. Failing to do so is usually met with some form of consequence, even termination of employment. However, this field is slightly different. For those who are employed, the policies appear to apply 24/7. Rather you are at home, at work, even on vacation you find yourself constantly having to “look over your shoulder.” One example that we were given, in regards to this, is Facebook. While it isn’t new for companies to speak to employees regarding posts, for this agency, your posts could be met with harsh consequences including termination.

Speaking ill of the agency is also forbidden. For example, if our contact were actively working for the “Department of Corrections,” they could be met with termination simply for speaking to us, it is to our best guest that whistleblower laws are completely obsolete for these employees. The agency is very “image” focused. Every expectation, on or off duty, that is held toward their employees, is primarily to ensure that this agency maintains a good public image.

Pay

Admittedly, from what we have seen, the average correctional officer does make good pay. So why mention this? Well, this is also a punishment that can be utilized against them. As it was explained to us, it is not unheard of for the Department to withold paychecks, forcing employees to go without for “X” amount of time, or until the next pay period. The typical solution for the employees, to which suffer this virtually inhumane form of control, is to go into debt with loans. Because the department can opt out of paying their employees at any given cycle, this means that they are forced to find alternative ways to make ends meet; for some, this means sneaking contraband into the facility for the offenders. Common reasons for this is even more bothersome: you get sick and your supervisor doesn’t approve the time off, you simply miss to many days, and so fourth. Regardless of the reasons why, it does leave questions into the legality of this consequence.

Keeping with the trend of loss pay, we go into another questionable act: Removing your pay. According to our insider, another “dirty” move that is often enacted is the deduction of your payroll from your bank account. According to the individual, this comes in a bit of a process, we will simplify it:

  1. Payroll is issued and deposited into your checking account.
  2. Employee uses money to pay bills, etc.
  3. Up to a week later, the account can suddenly go into a negative standing with the bank due to your check being withdrawn by the department.

Upon asking for the reasons why, we were informed that it is usually classified as an “overpayment.” With this, the insider informed us that they are actually salary based with the addition to getting overtime. This has left many questions regarding this action.

Staffing and Retaliation

The agency is always in a status of “hiring.” Given what we have composed thus far, I can’t fathom why. Nationally, the Department is critically understaffed, often only having one officer for each unit. Each unit could have 300+ offenders versing this one officer. “So why are they always hiring,” a question we had to ask.

“There are many reasons as to why the department is constantly hiring. If an officer angers the wrong person, usually a higher ranking individual, retaliation for this is not uncommon practice. But, aside from that, the field really isn’t for everybody, it really does require a specific personality type in order to truly thrive in such a negative environment,” was the response we got.

We inquired into the retaliation claim. The response, in essence, spoke of payroll (covered above,) frivilous write-ups, being treated in such a way that one is forced to resign, and so fourth. We inquired as to how common this occurs. According to our insider, this was very common practice. The department had a sort of shield in that the policies practically forbade employees from being able to publically speak out against the department, thus leaving them at their mercy.

Offender Treatment

Another concern that was brought up was regarding how “inmates” are treated. While some officers make a valiant effort, most treat them as though they were the “scum of the earth.” It was upon this note that the insider stated, “we have all made mistakes, we have all done s**t that wasn’t exactly legal. These people simply got caught. It is, to my core belief, that I treated all of them with respect so long as they returned that respect. When they failed to do so, I would attempt to calm the situation which usually meant actually speaking to the offender.”

Conclusion

There is much more we could go into. To do that, however, would require a novelette. While we have much more information, we will leave it to this for this article. For now, we can make a rather damning conclusion as to how these individuals are treated. Furthermore, we can even conclude that the State demands control of the personal lives of its employees, a disturbing concept at best. If requested, we may compose a secondary article into this subject. For now, we will simply leave it with this.

Alleged predator sues group

There are a variety of “predator hunting” groups in the world. However, you don’t hear about them being the target of a lawsuit, this group is special in that regard. Recently, a group that seeks out child predators and exposes them live has come under fire. Florida resident, Roy Anderson of Pensacola has filed a lawsuit against the predator hunting group, Oklahoma Predator Prevention (OPP.)

In the lawsuit, Anderson claims the group has maliciously slandered his name. One of many reasons for this lawsuit derive from what has happened post the video being broadcasted. Death threats, various calls, and even the loss of his job are just among the many events Anderson has delt with since the video. While we are not in the business of protecting predators (nor are we doing that here,) it is our job to present the facts as we know them. Below, are some snippets from the conversation between Anderson and whom he believed was a 15 yo girl.

The conversation does have us wondering just how far his lawsuit will actually go. Within, there are a variety of “red flags,” potential indicators that OPP may have been onto something. Even if they are in the right, the group itself has arisen questions with us.

While we have seen a variety of videos from this group, what we have not seen is any evidence that the group actually contacts law enforcement. While there maybe a reason for this, the group has never addressed them, a potential red flag in itself. What we have seen, however, is a couple of men who have conversations with potential predators. They meet up with the target at public locations, make a video, and leave it at that. There is a correct way to do this and there is an incorrect way to catch predators; this method would be correct if they worked with law enforcement and actually removed these people from the streets. Instead, in most cases, the alleged predator leaves upon gaining some fame and the story ends there. So who are they really protecting by doing this?

To be for the children, and to be about protecting them means that one takes the evidence in hopes of securing an arrest. If they aren’t doing this, and that does appear to be the case, than they really aren’t protecting the children; the advice is simple: get the predators off the streets. We are going to be observing this one closely due to the lawsuit. While we do intend to update this when able, we also hope the group takes a more proactive approach of getting these predators incarcirated.

Exposure pages/groups: Legit or is it harassment?

In the field of journalism, regardless of the sort of platform you operate, you can expect that somebody will, at one point, challenge your information. Earlier tonight, a page calling themselves, the “Victim’s Rights Advocacy Group,” had made a video to which they target a few individuals. However, within the video, they make a claim that was found to be questionable. Doing what we do, one of our admins challenged the claim. The claim was against the girlfriend of journalist, Meko Haze, Paige Adrian Chapman. Though the accusation, in itself wasn’t much, it accused her of being a “traitor.” At this point, our admin asked to see the evidence.

“There are many sources of information that can be easily looked up. You can do your own homework and catch up. But if you insist we would be more than happy to do a “Traitors Caught Red-Handed” video.”

The above is a portion of the reply given to our admin upon challenging the claim against Meko’s girlfriend, Paige. If so much “information” exists, as the administrator claims, than why was it so difficult to simply provide the said “information?” In normal circumstances, it isn’t. However, it is much harder to produce information that doesn’t exist than it is to provide something that does. With this response, the agenda of this specific page became clear. At the end of the statement, the admin makes mention of creating another “video.” It is presumed, based on the overall context, that they would, in some way, include either our admin or the overall platform. We will use this time to make the following statement:

“You may create any video you wish, your 253 followers may enjoy it. However, if you wish to include War on Corruption, please bear in mind, that we are a much larger platform, on multiple sites. If you do create a video, by all means, let’s see some of this alleged evidence you were so unwilling to provide.”

A key point to know is if a platform is posting factual information, providing documentation isn’t a problem. At this point, however, the group’s owner, became aggressive, and proceeded to ban the individual prior to deleting comments. While that may not seem like a “big deal,” it actually sheds a lot of doubt into the credibility of her page. However, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this sort of irrational behavior. Another group, “Un-blessed BIG Liars, Frauds, and Fakes” has displayed similar behaviors. But are groups like this actually legal?

Legal Issues?

Exposing an individual for malicious, illegal, or unethical deeds is one thing. However, looking into these groups, they go well beyond simply exposing an individual’s wrongful deeds; in fact, they borderline harass whoever they are after. So who makes this list? From what we can tell, it’s anybody who simply pisses the page owners off. While we have exposed some of the nonsense from Jamie, Fran, David, etc. we have always left it to specific situations. Beyond those situations, we have made a point of not hammering them. The pages in question, however, make a point of constantly harassing individuals they target, this is where the harassment aspect begins to form.

According to the dictionary, harassment is defined as,aggressive pressure or intimidation.” According to pacer.org, cyber harassment can include:

  1. electronic forms of contact
  2. an aggressive act
  3. intent
  4. repetition
  5. harm to the target

Over the years, I have seen many pages like this. They have three things in common.

  1. They rack up a few followers.
  2. They begin targeting individuals, groups, or pages.
  3. And finally, they seem to eventually phase out.

While we aren’t fond of some of the people mentioned on pages such as this, we are even less fond of blatently harassing, stalking, and bullying an individual. At some point, one must pull the ethics card. For groups like this, we have decided to do that very thing. We have seen personal information such as home addresses blasted into groups like this, what exactly is that exposing? If anything, information such as this can potentially place somebody into a dangerous situation; this is not “exposure.” This is outright digital stalking, and WoC is standing up against this behavior.

P4P: Final Review

As you have probably figured out from the title, this is most likely the last article we are going to cover on this subject. While it is our goal to protect vulnerable families from those who may potentially cause them harm, we can only beat this dead horse so many times. For those who have followed our platform, you are most likely aware of the alleged “non-profit” organization, “P4P.” Punished 4 Protecting, which was founded by Francesca Amato-Banfield, is an organization that has been under fire for sometime now. The reasons for such scrutiny vary for many reasons. This article is going to cover, not only this questionable organization, but its founder as well.

Punished 4 Protecting

Punished 4 Protecting was founded in early 2018. While this alone has no merit, it does in that Francesca Amato claims to have been around for many years, that is the only claim she makes that is factual. According to Amato, P4P is a “non-profit” organization. As a matter of fact, the below image is one to which makes such claim.

70687609_10156117359077303_421226430769135616_n

As stated, she claims to be a “non-profit.” What exactly does that entail? To be classified as a non profit, an organization has to be a 501(c)3. Organizations of this nature are tax exempt. However, with “P4P” one simple issue arises; it’s not a 501(c)3.If anything, it would be a  501(c)4. This sort of organization is defined as, “an organization that is not geared for profit and operated exclusively to promote social welfare. However, her organization is neither of these. It is incorporated and as such, cannot be a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4, We covered this issue in one of the first articles regarding Francesca’s organization. You may read the article, Sorry: 501c3 not found. 

When looking at the “P4P” site, you will notice another contradiction. Looking at the name, it has one slight flaw that disproves it being a “non-profit.” The minor issue is simply “inc.” If that doesn’t sound like anything critical, it actually is. It is because an organization cannot be incorporated and be a non-profit; it is either a corporation, or a non-profit, it can’t be both. While this could be argued as a simple oversight, looking into the list of New York’s registered non-profit organizations, one organization is missing: Francesca’s.

The above image brings fourth another problem. In the same post, Francesca, the family advocate, actually threatens Ashley Cooper with CPS. Now, for an individual who is “bringing down the system,” wouldn’t this be a bit counter-productive to her cause? If anything, it does demonstrate what lengths Francesca is willing to go to silence anybody who opposes her. Given the dialogue, one can presume that Francesca is fully aware of who Ashley is. Though this is also useless by itself, it plays into something we will be covering shortly.

Francesca Amato-Banfield

As we have stated, Francesca is a woman that has been encircled with controversy since 2017. With a variety of articles and YouTube videos, she has been repeatedly accused of being a con-artist. Furthermore, there have been many accusations regarding her friendships with registered sex offenders. In recent times, she faced accusations of spreading “sovereign citizenship” ideologies. One such example, comes from early 2019. Francesca Amato, alongside her typical group of associates, had a “one cure fix all” affidavit. While they claimed this affidavit worked, no evidence has ever been produced to validate this claim.

70458054_10156117127127303_9187273085839998976_n

In the first image we presented, it is clear that Francesca seems to know about Ashley’s case. Furthermore, she alleges to know enough to even know who the caseworker. However, in this most recent image, she is seen asking, “Who are you?” and, “Again who are you?” This question is a complete 180 from the original image. How does one implicate to know about another’s case if they don’t even know who that individual is to begin with? The fact that a self proclaimed advocate would resort to, what is essentially a form of blackmail, to silence anybody who speaks out against her, has only added to the controversy surrounding her.

Francesca Amato-Banfield, as we can tell from our research, is not an advocate. The amount of controversy, damaging information provided by her, and various other forms of questionable deeds has many people raising a brow. If the controversy isn’t about her directly, it surrounds her associates. One example of such is David Jose who, according to many people, takes money from a victim and then proceeds to block them. As if that isn’t enough, photographic evidence shows him illegally withdrawing funds out of bank accounts.  If you intend to use an advocate to fight your case, do your research. Don’t just pick the first beautiful flower you see, it may be toxic.

 

Other related articles:

Secret “Congressional” meeting?

Jamie Johnson (documentary)

Infamous Jamie Johnson gun video (full version)

“Advocate” exploits sexual abuse victim

Illegal counciling services?

 

Oklahoma man exposed live

The internet is a place that should be taken with caution, especially for children. Between the various scams, bullies, and even predators, children have much to be alert to. For some of these predators, however, they’re game is over before it even begins. One such case, is a man named Andrew Weaver of Midwest City, Oklahoma.

Before we get into the “meat” of the story, let’s first discuss who Andrew Weaver is. Weaver is a local man living in Midwest City. From what we were able to find, prior to his Facebook page being deleted, he works at a dairy facility called “Braum’s, allegedly as a manager. He has a wife and at least one daughter. This last fact makes this story all the more disturbing. War on Corruption has, at this point, attempted to make contact with his workplace. If we receive a response, we will update the article. Weaver was not available for comment as we have no method of contacting him. If, by some chance he sees this article, we would love to get a statement from him.

Weaver, recently was exposed by the Oklahoma group, “Oklahoma predator prevention,” when he appeared at a movie theatre in attempt to pick up whom he presumed to be a 15y.o girl. In the video, which can be viewed here. The video begins in the parking lot of the local theatre. Within minutes, Weaver is seen walking away from the group, “OPP” as they attempt to engage contact. However, the confrontation is short lived.

Weaver makes a dash to his car, where he quickly gets in, and makes a speeding dash away from the scene. Eventually, after several insults at Weaver’s expense, and rightfully so, the group is able to make phone contact with him. As they begin asking him questions, we learn a few more things about Andrew; the most damning being the fact he himself was allegedly a child victim. While this is no excuse for his actions, it does demonstrate a common knowledge: people who are victims as children, have a higher chance of being a predator as an adult.

At this time it is unclear as to rather or not the police have been contacted. However, given several indications within the video, it is presumed that the group did not make any contact. With that said, they also mention to Weaver that several officers do follow their page. To this regard, should we get any updates, they will be posted here. As for Andrew, his future has yet to be determined. In retrospect, however, we do wonder how those around him will feel once they learn of his recent fame.

Facebook Pedophile group causes outrage

Update:

Just a little over an hour ago, the group mentioned within this article, was taken down by Facebook.

 

More and more, we are seeing groups utilize, and even exploit flaws within the social media giant. Because of this, many of these groups have been allowed, regardless of its content; the group, to which we are exposing, is no different. Recently, what appears to be a pedophilic had been brought to light. Naturally, the group, “Hayden Summerall & jade weber Mc” has placed many activists into a fit of rage. The wall, while clearly displaying innapropriate images of young, non nude girls, is the primary reason behind the outrage. From nearly nude photos, to sexually suggestive poses, young children are portrayed in a variety of positions. While activists are very much offended and upset, Facebook has already displayed, in the past, an unwillingness to remove pages containing content such as this. This only raises further alarms as to how Facebook will choose to implicate, if at all, their “community standards” policies.

In the past, groups that had clearly violated the policies Facebook claims to uphold, had managed to slip through the cracks. Meanwhile, independent media platforms, CPS groups, and a variety of activism groups had been deleted, often with no explanation from Facebook. Furthermore, the administrators would often find themselves in “Facebook jail” post deleting of the groups. One such example of this occured with the former media platform, “The Daily Haze.” This was a platform, near the end, that couldn’t seem to evade the scope of Facebook’s selective policy enforcement, often times leading it’s journalist, Meko Haze, blocked from his primary account.

Questions as to rather or not Facebook will actually uphold its policies are currently pending. Once we learn the fate, if any, of this group, we will post the update to this article. However, for now, it is a literal standoff between activists and a diabolical group of individuals who actively, and openly, prowl the social media site. Stay tuned.

Super “Starr”

When we released the article on Francesca Amato, it was only logical that we would, in time, write this article. Looking into the self proclaimed “advocate,” Jamie “Starr” Johnson. While Jamie isn’t as popular as some of the others, she is equally, if not more, diabolical than the Fran club.

Jamie, while it isn’t confirmed to us, appears to have gotten her name known through a specific case. The mother, Nikki (lastname omitted) had a child who was hospitalized. We are going to spare the details as that isn’t prudent for this article. We may cover that at a later time, only with the mother’s consent. To make a long story short, while the child was dying in the hospital, Jamie made multiple videos to which she exploited the situation. Bear in mind, that nobody related to the child had knowledge of this until much later.

In time, the child did pass. Jamie retreated to the hospital grounds, just outside the hospital. Again, without the family’s knowledge or permission, a livestream was made. During the video, Jamie, without consent, had announced the untimely death. Naturally, this created a rather large rift between Nikki and herself. The exploitation didn’t end there, however. While the mother begged her former “advocate” friend to cease, Jamie continued to exploit the death, all while Nikki publically demanded that she stop. From this point forward, Jamie’s shattered legacy spirals downward.

Contraversy involving the self proclaimed advocate doesn’t end there, however. Recently, there have been several images discovered pertaining to the “super starr.” While taking seductive images is not a crime, it has many people asking, “should a family adcocate act in this manner?” The answer is simply, “NO.” When proclaiming to be a family/child advocate, there are certain expectations that one must uphold. For example, an off duty officer posts racially driven statements, they are suspended. While Jamie defends the images, it has risen much concern regarding her advocasy. However, we will let the evidence speak for itself. At the end of this article, we have attached some of the images.

Jamie has caught even more attention. In a recent livestream, in which Rudy Orr and Randy Davis seem to make amends, Jamie went on the offensive. Among words of encouragement, Jamie began a vicious attack against Mr. Davis. During this assault, one of our own began to challenge her. He asked, on several occasions, for evidence to support her claims. Among her claims were: stalking, harassment, and slander. As of the time we wrote this article, Jamie has still failed to provide any evidence.

Following the assault, Randy and Rudy conducted another livestream, openly inviting Jamie to partake. They are heard repeatedly questioning rather or not Jamie would appear to present her evidence. Jamie did not. In fact, while they were doing the livestream, she had apparantly been commenting in the initial post, containing her assault. As far as we can tell, she has no evidence to present and thus avoided any subject to which she is called out.

If this is what an advocate is, I truly feel for any family who are desperate. Before choosing an advocate, look into them. It is strongly suggested that you not only check into them criminally, but morally, afterall it’s your children who depend on you to make the correct choices. We are going to assist in the moral department. Here is your potential advocate.

Facebook Wars: The attack on Freedom

Sometime ago, we wrote another article pertaining to Facebook and it’s apparent war on media. To some regard, this is a bit of a follow-up article to that. Since the time of our previous article, Facebook has not only continued it’s unjust attack against independent media platforms, it appears to have increased the attack. The most common reason given for any platform being removed, “X post has violated our Community Standards.” So, seeing that posted by so many, we decided to take a look at their community standards. What we ultimately found, was a policy purposefully written to be extremely vague. Even with the vague writings, it remained obvious that Facebook, was in fact, in violation of their own policy. This article is going to break the policies, to which we believe are being implicated, down for everybody.

Community Standards: Section III Part 11: Hate Speech.

Below are a couple of paragraphs from the “Hate Speech” section of their Community Standards. For those of us, who have been on Facebook for awhile now, we have seen this policy broken by the Social Media giant countless times. How? Let’s review it:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. In some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

In the past, we have seen cases to which Facebook removed hate speech. However, we have also seen them outright ignore it. The first paragraph is very important in that it informs you as to what they define as hate speech. The contradiction, however, comes within the second paragraph; specifically, these sentences:

People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.”

Now, if you’re like me, chances are you have shared something along these lines; you shared something to bring awareness to the initial form of hate speech. In the case of me doing it, for example, Facebook banned my account for 30 days while leaving the post I was exposing up. In fact, according to Facebook, the original post was not in violation.

But the bulls-eye on the independent journalist doesn’t end there. Another area, to which Facebook has targeted journalists is:

Part IV: Integrity and Authenticity: Section 16: Spam

We work hard to limit the spread of commercial spam to prevent false advertising, fraud, and security breaches, all of which detract from people’s ability to share and connect. We do not allow people to use misleading or inaccurate information to collect likes, followers, or shares.”

This policy, as a whole, is highly questionable. Not only is it extremely vague, it leaves to many doors open, one door is a rather new policy of theirs, however we will get into that later. This policy has literally made it so that it’s up for interpretation as to what “spam” is. You get a media platform, for example, that posts often on a specific arena, Facebook could potentially remove that platform utilizing the claim that they are “spamming” the site. In fact, they could go as far as to state they are spamming the site with “hate speech.” this one paragraph has, in the past, raised questions. And seeing that this is all Facebook has written within this section, it’s obvious as to why.

While section 17 is also one for concern, let’s skip to the section that is really important within Part IV.

Section 18: Fake News

Reducing the spread of false news on Facebook is a responsibility that we take seriously. We also recognize that this is a challenging and sensitive issue. We want to help people stay informed without stifling productive public discourse. There is also a fine line between false news and satire or opinion. For these reasons, we don’t remove false news from Facebook but instead, significantly reduce its distribution by showing it lower in the News Feed.”

Now this policy has, to some regard, affected War on Corruption. The problem here lies beyond what Facebook is claiming, this one goes into “Freedom of Speech” and “censorship.” the problem with this policy, like so many, is it’s extremely vague. Furthermore, this policy raises many questions regarding Facebook’s stance on constitutional rights and liberties. According to Facebook, they wish to maintain a “safe environment.” However, it seems they also wish to silence any platform that attempts to conduct legitimate journalism. Because of how this policy is written, it can essentially be translated to say, “We, at Facebook, intend to impede any media platform that politically opposes our ideology.” At least this wording is more accurate.

Facebook literally has a novel sized section of policies. Like the above mentioned, most of their policies are extremely vague and left for individual interpretation. One thing that is not vague, however, is how Facebook utilizes the vagueness of these policies. Due to the way they are written, it has given Facebook a back-door into enforcing them when, and how, they see fit. Because of this, multiple platforms within the past year have suffered; the most recent platform within the long list, “The Daily Haze” (TDH.) It is apparent that Facebook conducts a malicious form of censorship, silencing anybody who opposes them. The solution? The only solution is to simply find another Social media site.

Cyber terrorist smear campaign

We recently did a brief review of a man named John Anderson. John Anderson is a self proclaimed “pedo hunter,” a man claiming to expose pedophiles. However, it appears he does a bit more than that. When not getting his way, he begins to slander the reputations of his targets. Sound a bit familiar? It should as I myself had a similar situation in 2017.

Currently, Anderson is facing charges for making threats against multiple people online, namely death threats. In a video, posted in 2018, Anderson lists off people that he intended to kill for various reasons. Though he claims the arrest was a way to expose pedophiles, it sheds light onto his mental instability.

As I said, this is a very familiar smear campaign. We looked into the accusations made. The only portion that could be confirmed, is in regards to John Aster. Upon research, we found that there is, in fact, a John Aster on the Australian registry. However, how Meko would be “endorsing” Aster has yet to be seen; it seems to be nothing more tha a slander claim.

We made a post regarding Anderson on the WoC page. It didn’t take long for us to figure out how these people operate. Essentially, if you say anything against him, you are supporting, or endorsing, a pedophile. Below is a photo demonstrating this.

As with Meko of “The Daily Haze,” we are also accused of promoting John Aster. Keep in mind that we had no knowledge of who John Aster was, muchless ever speak to him. Because we had no clue as to who Aster was, we challenged the claim…no response was ever given.

As I said, Anderson is facing charges for making countless threats to people online… A lot of people, might I add. Anderson, is clearly unstable, as shown in a suicide video.

In this video, Anderson had apparantly called the police due to him wanting to commit suicide. When they show up, however, rather than talking to them, he goes on the offensive and begans to attack the police. At this point, we essentially ruled the video as attention whoring. It was very obvious that he had no intention of actually performing the act, he just wanted the police to show up.

So why are they attacking a journalist? From what we can tell, Anderson’s wife attempted to make contact with Meko some months back, Meko never responded. Our guess is this agitated them until they finally decided to go on the attack, of course this is a guess.

The pedophile claim requires no evidence and yet is still lethal. Once such a claim is made, it generally destroys a person’s reputation, even if it’s false. However, Anderson has more than enough dirt to discredit him, especially the video to which he threatens the lives of multiple people. While he tries to smear a creditable journalist, I fully believe it will be him who will lose.

While I write this, there are sites that appear to be gathering evidence against Anderson. It seems their intent is to pursue criminal charges for his various cyber terroristic threats. Given what we have seen thus far, we wish these sites the best of luck.