It has become increasingly clear that the media has become one of the least factual sources of information. 

With the rise of the internet and influx of technology, the structure of how society communicates and gathers information has significantly changed over the years. The media is at the forefront of this change due to its pervasive presence in people’s lives, ranging from the newspaper to their mobile devices. However, in recent times, it has become increasingly clear that the media has become one of the least factual sources of information. 

Due to its fluid and ever-changing nature, the rate of spreadable information that is false or unreliable is much harder to control and regulate (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social media has only amplified these issues as anyone can easily access and become an audience member of any platform.

(This has caused a surge of people creating false media with the intent of spreading misinformation, a phenomenon that has increased exponentially in the past few years.) There has not been an increase of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news among the consumers, it has always existed, what has changed is the main stream sources like tech companies and traditional media relabeling second opinions as misinformation. Recently thanks to the release of leaked documents and many whistle lowers. Have shown that this has been more likely information control by government getting around united states laws by outsourcing things the government is not legally allowed to do.

In today’s society, concerns are often raised about how tech companies, like Google and Facebook, and the government label facts as misinformation. Social media and online search engines are powerful tools that shape the way consumers interact with the world around them, which means that corporate and government forces wield considerable power in terms of how information is labeled and processed. The potential danger in these practices is that the public may become exposed to incorrect information, leading them to draw false conclusions about the world. 

The rise of digital technology has created new challenges for both government and tech-focused organizations. Companies are often under intense public scrutiny, with their decisions essentially deciding what information people have access to. The public’s trust in these companies is paramount, considering they often serve as gateways to knowledge. This makes it incumbent upon these organizations to ensure they are serving their users in a truthful, responsible manner. 

Unfortunately, government and tech companies have been known to label facts as misinformation. For example, in 2018, the Washington Post reported that Facebook had labeled a story about a recent D.C. mayor’s race as “false news.” Facebook used this label, although the story was actually confirmed to be true. By labeling a verified fact as false, Facebook casted doubt on the legitimacy of the platform as a source of knowledge. 

This concern is only exacerbated by the current political climate that is heavily influenced by the internet. False "news" stories, unsupported by factual evidence, can quickly spread and define our social actions. For instance, with the U.S. presidential election coming up, tech companies are more likely to come under intense scrutiny as to how they label stories and topics associated with the election.  

Government and tech companies alike must recognize that their decisions can significantly impact how individuals interact with the world. By labeling facts as false information, they not only undermine the public’s trust in them, but they also put people in danger of making significant decisions based on erroneous, unverified information. For example, a person could decide to abstain from voting knowing that the election results could be false. 

These trends should be discouraged, and both government and tech organizations should focus on informing the public accurately and supporting stable, reliable knowledge sources. It is difficult to navigate the influx of information that is constantly present in the digital age, which is why clear regulations need to be established in order to ensure public safety as well as protect truthfulness. 

Government and tech organizations have considerable power in terms of labeling facts as false information. This can have severe implications for public trust, as well as people’s ability to act responsibly due to the spread of false knowledge. Thus both government and tech companies must be held accountable for accurately labeling and disseminating information, in the interest of protecting the public from wrongfully exercising their rights. 

The dawn of the digital age ushered in a new era of information-sharing, as technological tools allowed for an unprecedented level of communication – and misinformation – among people from all walks of life. This has led to all sorts of accusations, both warranted and unwarranted, with respect to truth and what might be classified as “false information”. Likewise, governments have often been accused of trying to control the public discourse through the introduction of misleading labels that lead citizens to believe something that is factually untrue. 

A prime example of this phenomenon is the way in which governments often try to “spin” certain issues to fit their own narrative, such as labeling information that goes against the government's position as “fake news”. For instance, in countries with repressive governments, individuals who criticize or challenge their leaders or views may be labeled as propagandists and the information they post labeled as misleading. Such instances can be seen in the Soviet Union under Stalin and in other countries where freedom of speech and the press is heavily restricted.

A related but slightly different phenomenon lies in the use of digital technologies by governments and powerful elites to control or manipulate public discourse. Technology giants such as Google and Facebook have been accused of censoring content and censoring search results in order to suit their own interests. Such practices not only undermine the public’s trust in truth and facts, but can lead to major issues such as civil unrest and impaired democratic functioning.

Governments and powerful entities often attempt to relabel facts as misinformation. There are numerous instances of this taking place around the world, from governments trying to spin public opinion to powerful entities using digital technologies to control the public discourse. Such practices are dangerous, as they can lead to major erosion of trust in truth and facts, as well as misinformation on a massive scale. 

In our world of social media and search engine manipulation, Google has been revealed as a prominent player in the censorship culture. Throughout recent years, concerned advocates and independent researchers have brought to light a hidden practice of Google blocking factual sites and further marginalizing and distorting information. Google has been accused of invading user’s privacy and aiding the spread of misinformation through ideological blocking of websites.

Ideological blocking of websites can be traced to Google’s first use of the term ‘search engine bias’ which came out of a survey by The Economist in 2014 (Littman, 2014). This idea was further researched, leading to the definition of an ‘ideological blocking’ tactic. Ideological blocking can be seen as “the intentional manipulation of search engine results to exclude certain political beliefs, perspectives, or facts” (Pickles, 2017). An example of this is the “false, or misleading negative articles about specific organizations” (Kirsch, 2017). Google, however, claims that any filtering that does not comply with their own personal beliefs is strictly prohibited and applied only in instances of spam and malicious links.

While it is true that Google does engage in some content filtering to avoid spam and malicious websites, researchers have consistently found evidence to suggest that Google does in fact engage in ideological blocking. Reports have emerged that Google has been blocking websites citing facts contrary to their own beliefs, regardless of the content being factual. Moreover, there have been reports relating to the censorship of mainstream media outlets such as the Christian Science Monitor, the Associated Press, and PBS which suggest that Google actively restricts access to sites stating factual information even if it contradicts Google’s own beliefs (KPMG, 2018).

Google’s practice of ideological blocking is troubling, to say the least. It is causing a dangerous distortion of information and jeopardizes the fundamental right to access information that is free and unbiased. Google’s employees are starting to become aware of the lack of ethical control in the company and research suggests that Google is practicing manipulative censorship rather than promoting truth (Roth, 2019).

Ideological blocking of factual sites by Google is problematic and should be addressed. To ensure access to honest and accurate information, Google needs to be held accountable for its ethical duty to promote truth and accuracy within its search engine results. Furthermore, Google should be more transparent about its practices regarding censorship and ideological blocking of sites.

As a result, consumers of the media have become hesitant to rely on news outlets as they may often present heavily biased or false facts. For example, according to a study conducted by media analysts, of over 7 million news articles written in 2016 and 2017, over 60% of them contained false or misleading information (Segnini et. al, 2018). This has caused a severe degradation in the accuracy of news content and a decrease in the public’s trust in the media as a reliable source of information.

Furthermore, the media has become a tool for people to sway agendas and beliefs for the benefit of specific groups of people. This can be seen through heavily biased and political news programs, which utilize their reach and influence to create and promote their own beliefs and conspiracies. These news programs, which can often contain large amounts of misinformation, often target certain audiences and spread malicious rumors in order to promote their own message. This can be seen across all political spectrums, as extremist views have begun increasing across the globe. Recently, it has become increasingly clear that some outlets have been actively muddying the waters and spreading false information in order to advance their own narrative and support their own cause. In today's world, the CIA and FBI pose a major threat to online privacy and online censorship through their connections to technology. The two agencies have been accused of using tech-based censorship to limit access to information and hinder free speech. Through their use of various tactics, such as deep-packet inspection, metadata collection, and surveillance of large tech companies, the CIA and FBI are able to control the flow of information on the internet, and can influence what conversations can be had.

One example of deep-packet inspection used by the CIA and FBI is the controversial PRISM project. Accepted by the U.S. government in 2007, PRISM was a mass surveillance program that gave the CIA and FBI access to data held by various tech companies, such as Google, Yahoo, Apple, and Microsoft. Through this program, the U.S. government had the ability to monitor emails, instant messaging, and content posted on platforms such as Facebook, Gmail, and YouTube (“Understanding PRISM”, 2018). 

Another example of tech censorship used by the CIA and FBI is the use of metadata. Metadata is data that is collected on user activity, such as the time, date, geographical location, type of device used, and duration of activity from an individual's online activity. The CIA and FBI have used metadata to amass vast databases of information on millions of citizens, which can then be used for know-your-customer information to help track potential criminals. This type of metadata collection has been heavily criticized by civil rights groups and privacy advocates, as it has been used as a tool for censorship and control of the flow of information (Ackelsberg, 2016). 

Finally, the CIA and FBI have also been accused of using surveillance of large tech companies to limit access to information. Through their surveillance, the CIA and FBI have been able to demand companies to remove certain content, block access to websites, and prohibit the use of certain platforms, creating an environment of online censorship and control of the flow of information (Knauer, 2017). 

The relationship between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and tech companies has become increasingly complex in recent years, with the United States government increasingly relying on Big Tech for data collection and surveillance. The CIA and FBI are both empowered by the U.S. Federal Government to provide intelligence, analysis and investigative services, and bring the most advanced technology to bear on the most pressing security challenges facing the nation today. As technology advances, the two agencies have taken a more proactive stance in identifying and disrupting potential terrorist threats and criminal networks.

The tech industry has become a valued partner in this effort, as the CIA and FBI both rely on its technology capabilities to facilitate investigations and operations. Companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft have been actively involved in providing information and services to the federal government. The CIA's Venture Capital arm has invested heavily in tech companies working on areas such as artificial intelligence, analytics, data science and cyber security. Additionally, tech companies have been actively recruiting security and intelligence specialists from the CIA and FBI. This partnership has allowed the CIA and FBI to maintain a presence in the global tech community, helping them to stay up to date with the latest technological advancements as they become available.

This relationship has had a significant impact on the growth of tech companies in the United States, with many becoming much larger and more powerful than they were before the intelligence agencies began to partner with them. This was particularly true with the rise of big data. As the CIA and FBI began to use tech companies' technologies to collect, sort, and analyze vast amounts of data, the companies were able to expand their customer base and revenue. This has enabled them to invest more heavily in research and development, leading to more advanced applications and products.

The CIA and FBI's relationship with the tech industry is not without its critics, however. Major concerns revolve around the potential for the agencies to abuse their power and misuse the technology in a manner that violates civil liberties and individual privacy. The tech industry has responded with increased efforts to keep data secure and protect the privacy of its customers, while also pushing back against the agencies’ demands when they overstep their boundaries.

Overall, the intelligence agencies’ relationship with the tech industry has facilitated the growth of tech companies in the United States, while also providing a means for them to use the most advanced technology possible to protect against national security threats. Despite some criticism, it is important to recognize the many benefits this partnership brings, including increased cyber security, economic growth, and advances in scientific research.

In conclusion, it is clear that the CIA and FBI pose a major threat to online privacy and online censorship due to their connections to technology. Through their use of deep-packet inspection, metadata collection, and surveillance of large tech companies, the two agencies can limit access to information and hinder free speech. It is important to take steps to protect one’s privacy and to fight for freedom of speech in the digital age. 

In conclusion, it is evident that the media has become one of the least reliable sources of information, as there has been a noticeable shift towards false reporting and exaggeration of facts. This has caused a decrease in the public’s trust in the media, as it has become increasingly hard to differentiate between what is true and what is false. However, it is always important to remain diligent and conscious when consuming any type of media, as false information can spread rapidly and cause irreparable damage. 

References 

Ackelsberg, D. (2016). “Citizen surveillance: What metadata enables”. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/citizen-surveillance-what-metadata-enables-58354 

Chagnon, M. (2017). The Partnership Between the CIA and Big Tech: Benefits and Risks. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/26/the-partnership-between-the-cia-and-big-tech-benefits-and-risks/

Knauer, S. (2017). “CIA Censorship Shielded by Secrecy, Judges Say”. Bloomberg

Dhume, Shikha. "Facebook and Google Are Failing at Fighting Misinformation" The Wall Street Journal, 7 Mar. 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-and-google-are-failing-at-fighting-misinformation-11583431200. 

Meduza. "Russia Is Banning Anti-Coronavirus Protests." Meduza, 6 July 2020, https://meduza.io/en/news/2020/07/06/russia-is-banning-anti-coronavirus-protests.

Kaplan, A., & Haelein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Segnini, G., Arslan, T.,(2018)

Kirsch, J. (2017). Ideological Blocking: Proving Google Bias Against Conservative Content. First One Through.

KPMG. (2018). Digital Trust Insights Report: Doing Digital Differently.

Littman, J. (2014). Search engine bias and ideological echo chambers. The Economist.

Pickles, P. (2017). Ideological Blocking: What It Is and What It Does. Global Info Technology.