Geolocators, cookie and pixel trackers, malicious links, fake websites, drug dealers, human trafficking... and much more. All of these things I have been doing research on, and reaching out to my local community in order to get a grip on how serious these issues truly are. Being on the Board of Directors of an upstart social media site like Canund.com comes with a surprising amount of responsibility, and as a libertarian, it has been somewhat humbling in scope. I am noticing it is giving me some increased and grudging respect of some of our conventional law. These are all things I expected to deal with, but the gravity of it also eats at the soul a bit I find.
What I do not expect to deal with is persistent slander at Canund.com's expense, especially when it begins to emerge from so-called 'News' agencies whom appear to assume ethics only apply to their competition. Vice News apparently reached out to us with a sort of fair and objective intent at some Q and A recently. At the time, we had no reason, other than questionable actions from their past, to doubt their sincerity. With that said, Vice News has some dirty laundry, so in all honesty, we are more disappointed than upset with the unnecessary distraction here at Canund. Personally, I also had half a mind to expect this. Not impressed, but not really surprised either. It has been two days. No redactions, no edits, no inquiries, no apologies. Here is my response;
* * *
Re: 'This ‘Uncensored’ Right-Wing Facebook Clone Allows Racism But Not Nudity', By Mack Lamoureaux; Dated 25, Apr, 2019, by Vice.com.
Vice News recently approached us with apparent interest in Canund.com. We answered some questions and had a pleasant interaction... or so we thought. Later they released this particular abomination they pass off as news at our expense.
The article linked above I think is a great example of how a private media agent abuses the privileges of the Free Press. First I will go over basic ethics in journalism. These principles are as diverse as the world is large, but I notice personally they mainly fall into four principles, and in my own words they are as follows:
⦁ Truth and honesty
Reporting truth should always be strived for by any journalist, second only to not doing any undue harm. More on that in 'Accountability'. Journalism is a fact-based trade, and fact-checking along with citing sources in a fair manner are required by any ethical journalist.
⦁ Independence and objectivity
This one should be common sense. It means journalists are required to be unbiased, and free of any outside influence which may form a conflict of interest. Journalists must also warn of any possibility of a conflict of interest within their work if they think this is not always possible.
⦁ Impartiality and attention to detail
Journalists are required to explain things as clearly and completely as possible. This means in a dicotomy, or a dispute between two parties, they are to break down both sides of the issue, and neither favour a side with any pre-established premises, nor undue attention.
This one also falls under common sense IMO. Own what you write, correct mistakes, and protect your sources and the public. Sometimes this means not being in a cold-blooded hurry to be first to the 'scoop'. Basic human decency and rule of law (eg. police investigations) must also be respected.
For journalists, as I understand it, these four points highlight two prime concerns in this order; first, do no harm, and second, honesty. The article in question from Vice has not only cast falsehoods about Canund.com, but apparently about one of our users, Kevin Goudreau, whom from what I have been led to believe, has turned a new leaf from a troubled past. I clearly remember one of Mr Goudreau's past affiliations, as Wolfgang Droege's 'Heritage Front' was prominent in the news when I was a teenager, and so far, I have not observed any incitement, or any other illegal activities from this user. A good way to remind someone they are not permitted a second chance is to drag through their past and occult them because of it, despite demonstratable actions at redemption.
This is clearly libel from Vice, unless there is some sort of major inquiry they have not disclosed to us in regards to Mr Goudreau. If anyone from Vice, or possibly even the authorities, wishes to contact me with any apparent illegal activities I may have overlooked from Mr Goudreau, please contact me ASAP. My email will be below. One of the MSM's points for today is redemption, and more than once I see references to to how ISIS fighters can be redeemed in both article and commentary. Mr Goudreau may also be deserving a second chance then? This is not a great place for us to be in as directors and admins, but we will see this is resolved ethically and within Canadian law.
The article brought up 'Holocaust Revisionism'. This is a popular hobby amongst Richard Spencer's more ignorant and authoritarian offshot of the Alt-Right. I would be a fool to not factor this in, but it would also be foolish to expect Vice News to do an in-depth analysis of the alt-Right, and tell you there are actually two wings of it.
The original Alt-Right was a neological, and conventionally blurry movement which began to form after the Cold War, between the 1990s and to the mid 2000s. Those identified with it were dissatisfied with earlier-era, global interventionalism. This movement was attractive to both the moderates in the conventional left and right, and borrowed heavily from Paleoconservatism. Jewish professor Paul Gottfried was the one who first coined the term 'Alt-Right' in fact. Richard Spencer, who needs little introduction, did not come into the picture until recently, and Professor Gottfried personally disavowed himself from Richard Spencer when his antics were at their peak.
Now to dispel what appears to be more intellectual dishonesty from Vice, revising the Holocaust and denying the Holocaust are two separate issues. My specific opinion here will mostly remain my own, but I do believe we had a real event in 20'th century history which I refer to as the Holocaust. Also, what if revision of this event leads to more closure for vicitims' familes? Why wasn't that considered? Revising history is NOT denying history. It is actually an effort to preserve it.
To sum up the remainder of Mr Lamoureaux's article, I did not overlook the attempt at the false-premise he tried to hit us with. Canund.com formed as a reaction to the unstable, questionable, and seemingly chaotic yet biased administrative actions from Facebook staff and algorithms. Both Scott Bacheldor and I have been targeted on Facebook which has led to our accounts either being watched or terminated for issues outside of Facebook's ToS. Out of frustration, this led us to form Canund with the selling point being the elimination of the 'flag' or 'report button' in favour of transparent cooperation with local and international law. This is covered in our Canund.com Terms of Service:
We did not form Canund.com with the intent to inject, nor did we accept any, hateful ideologies or sectarian manifestos while formalising our operations. We are, and will remain, a private, law-abiding, and unbiased online utility for our users while I am on the Board.
The main issue here with me is the inexcusable use of fallacy which was quite apparent in this article. We are in times of increased bigotry and racism, so it is now more important than ever, that journalists drop the smug intellectual dishonesty, and get this right. IMO, Mr lamoureaux failed here; Vice failed here. This specific abuse of classification from the MSM is why the labels 'bigot' and 'racist' are now nearly meaningless today, and why far fewer people trust agencies like Vice News altogether.
It might behoove the writer, while on the note of 'accountability' was at least cited this time, to re-aquaint themselves with some journalistic ethics, and the complextities of 'free speech' in the West, specifically the difference between human behavior and rule of law. Revisionism, although frustrating, is also NOT hate speech or incitement. We don't see people calling for 'Flat Earthers' to be rounded up, do we? I am only disappointed they fooled so many... Revising history and denying history are two separate issues. Lies and bad ideas never survive the test of time anyways.
Freedom of speech means speech protected by law, but this does not guarantee everyone is going to like what you have to say. We at Canund still allow people to block unwanted posts or repulsive users. We understand in the end, no one is truly unaccountable to what they say or type, regardless of how legal it is. Let my commentary here be testament to that.
Now let me get back to the great time of worrying about human traffickers and malware... Such a great time...
PS: IF there are any legal concerns about any of our groups or users, feel free to email me, or contact your local authorities;
Canund Security Director