reSee.it - Related Post Feed

shellenberger
Posted - May 3, 2023 at 2:13 PM
Saved - May 5, 2023 at 2:51 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Governments worldwide are imposing sweeping new laws to censor citizens on social media and other internet platforms. Under the guise of preventing harm and holding tech companies accountable, politicians and NGOs are seeking to control the information environment. The EU is seeking new powers to regulate social media companies, while the US's RESTRICT Act threatens 20 years in prison for accessing blacklisted websites. The West is on the cusp of a new and more powerful form of totalitarianism, and an international movement is needed to defend freedom of speech.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The idea that governments around the world have for years been secretly censoring ordinary citizens sounds crazy, but it's true. Worse, they are now on the cusp of imposing what can only be described as a totalitarian system to end freedom of speech as we know it.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

World On Cusp Of Woke Totalitarianism As Governments Act To End Freedom Of Speech Media blackout as politicians in EU, US, UK, Brazil, Canada & Australia seek to jail citizens for wrongthink under the cover of a Big Lie about "hate speech" by @shellenberger@galexybrane

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The Twitter Files gave us a window into how government agencies, civil society, and tech companies work together to censor social media users. Now, key nations are attempting to enshrine this coordination into law explicitly.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Around the world, politicians have either just passed or are on the cusp of passing sweeping new laws, which would allow governments to censor ordinary citizens on social media and other Internet platforms.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Under the guise of preventing “harm” and holding large tech companies accountable, several countries are establishing a vast and interlinked censorship apparatus, a new investigation by Public finds.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Politicians, NGOs, and their enablers in the news media claim that their goal is merely to protect the public from “disinformation.” But vague definitions and loopholes in new laws will create avenues for broad application, overreach, and abuse.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

In Ireland, for example, the government may soon be able to imprison citizens simply for possessing material that officials decide is “hateful.” Under the RESTRICT Act in the US, the government may soon have the authority to monitor the Internet activity of any American deemed a security risk.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Governments aim for total control. In Canada, a state agency can filter and manipulate what Canadians see online. In Australia, a single government official can compel social media companies to remove posts.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Governments and allied NGOs intend to force tech companies to comply with their rules. UK lawmakers have threatened to imprison social media managers who don’t censor enough content. And Brazil has introduced severe penalties for platforms that fail to remove “fake news.”

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The key area of action is the European Union. It is seeking sweeping new powers to regulate social media companies. And if it acts, it may change how social media companies operate worldwide, given the EU’s economic power and influence globally.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, large tech companies must share their data with “vetted researchers” from non-profits and academia, which would cede content moderation to NGOs and their state sponsors.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The US’s RESTRICT Act, sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), threatens 20 years in prison or a $250,000 fine for accessing blacklisted websites through “virtual private networks,” or VPNs, which are ways to create a private connection between a computer or phone and the Internet.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

There has been no moment similar to this one in the roughly 30 years of widespread public Internet usage in Western societies. Officials have introduced these policies mostly in the dead of night with little publicity or outcry. There has been a virtual blackout of what’s happening by mainstream news media corporations, with many appearing to support the new laws.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

As shown with the Twitter Files, the Censorship Industrial Complex is as much about discrediting accurate facts, true narratives, and content creators who threaten its power while boosting the ones that do.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

We are thus witnessing the emergence of a governmental apparatus with the power to control the information environment in ways that determine what people believe to be true and what is false.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

As such, it is no exaggeration to say that the West is on the cusp of a new and much more powerful form of totalitarianism than either Communism or Fascism, which were limited in their reach by geography.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

If we are to defeat it, we must understand it. Why are governments seeking to crack down on freedom of speech from New Zealand to the Netherlands and Brazil to Canada? Why now? And why are they getting away with it?

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

We are building an international movement to defend freedom of speech. We can’t do it without you. Please subscribe now to read the rest of our investigation: https://t.co/rTCBULnTy4

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

We can't do this alone. You can follow me here at Twitter or at Substack for free. You can contribute to the cause by subscribing to me here or at Substack, which will also get you access to subscriber-only content. You can be in contact, make a tax-deductible donation, and learn more here: https://censorshipindustrialcomplex.org

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

It's necessary, not ironic. Freedom isn't free, and defending it has, for hundreds of years, required passing the hat. We always give away a large amount of free content, and there are ways to be involved that don't require donating. https://t.co/dPAvXPMJGg

shellenberger
Posted - August 24, 2023 at 5:04 PM
Saved - August 25, 2023 at 4:21 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Politicians, philanthropists, and NGOs claim to support free and open societies, but their actions tell a different story. They are launching a severe attack on fundamental freedoms, fueled by narcissism and psychopathy. The Internet plays a significant role, enabling censorship and surveillance. Elites, including MetaFacebook, are funding activists to serve as biased fact-checkers, censoring political opponents. The UN and governments worldwide are building a digital army to combat "wrongthink." Western elites are adopting totalitarian tactics, suppressing free speech. We must unite to defend freedom of speech and fight against this global crackdown. Support the movement for free speech and help protect democracy.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Politicians, philanthropists, and NGOs say they want free and open societies, but they don't. In fact, they are waging the most serious attack on fundamental freedoms in 100 years. The Internet's enabling it, elites are paying for it, and narcissism & psychopathy are fueling it.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Elite Crackdown On Free Speech Worldwide Intensifies From North America to Australia to Europe, elites seek censorship, prvacy invasions, and the prosecution of wrongthink as "pre-crime" by @shellenberger The leaders of nations, representatives of international organizations, including the United Nations, and philanthropists say they are committed to creating free and open societies. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook has independent fact-checkers, is open to all perspectives, and doesn’t interfere in elections. And, in response to questions from a colleague at Public, a representative from Geroge Soros’ Open Society Foundations insisted the philanthropy supported free speech. “In response to your effort to conflate any attempt to address hate speech as a frontal assault on free speech itself,” the Soros spokesperson said, “perhaps the words of the UN Secretary-General will help in illuminating a crucial distinction: ‘Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech.’” But these words are a thin veil covering an aggressive attack on freedom of speech around the world, from Australia to North America to Europe, where the Digital Services Act, which demands Internet companies “Address any risk they pose on society, including public health, physical and mental well-being,” goes into effect today. A blockbuster new investigation by Australia’s SkyNews discovered that Meta-Facebook has been paying activists to serve as neutral fact-checkers while, in reality, using their power to censor their political enemies. The context is that this fall, Australians will vote in a special national election, the Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, on whether to give special political powers to native peoples. Facebook is funding those in favor of the referendum to censor its opponents. “An audit of RMIT Voice fact checks showed the 17 Voice checks between May 3 and June 23 this year were all targeting anti-Voice opinions or views,” Sky News Found. Meta allowed the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) to censor disfavored views even while “knowing it was a breach of the rules Zuckerberg established to distance himself from fact-checking responsibilities,” reported SkyNews. The RMIT, which is a respected technical university like America’s MIT,  “used the powers Facebook has given it to throttle Sky News Australia’s Facebook page with false fact checks multiple times this year, breaching the Meta-endorsed IFCN Code of Principles and preventing millions of Australians from reading or watching Sky News Australia’s journalism.” How did the fact-checkers abuse their powers? By smearing their political enemies as racists. “Fact-checkers employed by RMIT have led to numerous code breaches,” reports SkyNews, “including one fact-checker using her social media account to label Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, a fear-mongering racist for his views on the Voice.” As for Soros’ Open Society Foundations, its spokesperson cleverly tucked a call for expanded censorship into her response to our queries. After saying, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech,” the spokesperson said, “It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is prohibited under international law” [emphasis added]. “Keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous” is precisely the justification for censorship that politicians in Ireland and Scotland are making to be able to invade people’s homes and confiscate their phones and computers, as Irish reporter Ben Scallan described yesterday. Consider the twisted logic. Irish police must invade people’s homes in order to make sure that their hate materials don’t escalate into something that could be illegal. That’s a totalitarian move toward the police enforcing “precrime,” as depicted in the terrifying science fiction thriller, “Minority Report.” Meanwhile, the UN is now building a “digital army” of censorship activists around the world to wage war on wrongthink, or what it calls “deadly disinformation.” According to the UN, “misinformation” is “deadly” and poses an “existential” threat. The UN’s effort matches the WHO effort, which views speech it disagrees with as a kind of pathogen. In Germany, a court ordered the American writer C.J. Hopkins to either go to jail or pay 3,600 Euros for comparing the covid lockdowns to the Nazis. The government claimed Hopkins was promoting Nazism when, obviously, he doing the opposite. While some may take offense at the comparison, it makes clear that Hopkins has a negative, not positive, view of Nazism. In the United States, a nonprofit organization called Center for Countering Digital Hate, whose former communications director worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, has successfully led a boycott against X, formerly named Twitter, for not being more censorious. As a result, advertising revenue to X is down 60 - 70%, according to news reports. In short, Western elites, both governmental, corporate, and philanthropic, are embracing the kinds of totalitarian tactics made famous by the East German Stasi, the Chinese government, and dystopian regimes depicted in movies like “Minority Report.” Why is that? And how can we fight back?

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The Internet, Power, and Psychopathology The Internet enables all of this digital totalitarianism. As Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo notes, "The internet gave us the possibility to have the greatest democratization of speech and information ever...It also opens up the possibility for the greatest ever control — surveillance, monitoring, and censorship." So, too, does money. The Poynter Institute is the go-to organization for spreading misinformation in the form of partisan “fact-checking.” It founded “Politifact” and the International Fact-Checking Network. The Knight Foundation, Ford Foundation, Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation, Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation, Tides Foundation, and Tides Center, Omidyar Network Fund, Carnegie Corp. of New York, Annie E. Casey Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, Google, and Facebook all fund Poynter and its headlong crusade to censor citizens around the world in the name of protecting free speech. There is bad psychology behind the war on free speech. Elites came to hate and fear ordinary people after the election of Trump and the Brexit referendum in 2016. Liberals made a deal with the devil, partnering with forces within the national security state, particularly in the Five Eyes nations of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, to label populists and nationalists as racists, anti-Semites, and fascists. Behind that hatred and fear are leaders and bureaucrats high on the spectrum of narcissism, anti-social, and other “Cluster B personality disorders.” They mesmerize and intimidate government officials, journalists, and academics in the same way that past totalitarians did. The narcissists, in their pettiness and fragility, demand the censorship of their critics, while the leaders with anti-social personality disorders bully their way to the top of various institutions and then force out those people who oppose their ideological and political corruption. As we have seen, this toxic combination of narcissists and psychopaths transforms America’s institutions into highly partisan religious organizations. Major news media organizations forced out curmudgeonly journalists who were skeptical that COVID came from nature, just as the FBI forced out agents who are, rightly, more loyal to the Constitution than the FBI’s corrupt leaders. Why are elites cracking down? The reasons are that the Internet allowed it, the elites are funding it, and power-mad individuals have seized upon the West’s decline to take over powerful institutions. Standing Up For Free Speech Overcoming overwhelming elite support for censorship won’t be easy. The simultaneity of the crackdown, the extent to which pro-censorship advocates have taken power in institutions, and the amount of money they have is as shocking to me today as when we first discovered the crackdown back in early May. Recently I have come to believe that I will need to fight for freedom of speech not for a few years but perhaps for decades, given how entrenched the pro-censorship elites are. The good news is that free speech advocates are finding each other and starting to fight back. Next month, we will issue a strong statement in support of free speech. We are building our own fact-checking apparatus in alliance with those news media companies and think tanks that have been censored by institutions, including governments, spreading disinformation. And with luck, the Supreme Court will decide to hear Missouri v. Biden, which could radically alter the U.S. government’s relationship with social media companies. And now, we are happy to announce a major push to kill or reform Ireland’s proposed hateful censorship law. Yesterday our new Irish Free Speech Coalition launched a website and advertising campaign. We will kick off at a September 16 free speech event in Dublin. Tax-free donations to the cause can be made through the website Censorship Industrial Complex, which describes the global crackdown on free speech. We can’t do this alone and aren’t. Many people have stepped up to make donations since we first raised the alarm about the global crackdown on free speech nearly four months ago, and we are grateful to all of them. But the situation is more dire than most people realize, and we need support to be able to fund the investigative research, events, and travel that building a global movement requires. We are nearing the end of the beginning of our movement, which has involved ripping away the mask hiding the real agenda of the world’s censorious elites. The leaders of nations, representatives of international organizations, including the United Nations, and philanthropists who say they are committed to creating free and open societies are, in reality, not. Rather, they are interfering in elections and violating both the First Amendment and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. We can stop them, but we’re going to need your help. /END https://censorshipindustrialcomplex.org/donate-1

Donate — Censorship Industrial Complex censorshipindustrialcomplex.org

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Please consider supporting the global movement for free speech! https://censorshipindustrialcomplex.org/donate-1

Donate — Censorship Industrial Complex censorshipindustrialcomplex.org

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Please help our Irish friends protect their freedom and their democracy from @HMcEntee @georgesoros @AlexanderSoros @OpenSociety and others trying to create a hateful police state! https://t.co/IXIQ81jBMZ

kylenabecker
Posted - September 14, 2023 at 6:32 PM
Saved - December 4, 2023 at 2:00 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The UN's Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Flemings, expressed concern over the spread of misinformation and hate speech on platforms like Twitter. The UN aims to combat this by partnering with platforms, promoting reliable information, and educating users on responsible sharing. They are also developing a code of conduct for digital platforms to ensure information integrity. The UN's efforts to monitor and react to misinformation and hate speech are crucial to protect their operations and causes. However, some find the UN's global policing of the internet for misinformation alarming.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

The UN Declares 'War' Against Covid and Climate Change 'Misinformation' "We are in an information war... we need to massively ramp up our response." The UN's Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Flemings blamed Twitter/X for the spread of dangerous misinformation and "hate speech" at the Nobel Prize Summit. "And of course, firings at Twitter have left us with no one to call to flag content that is abusive or even incitement to violence. We're now seeing that almost anyone can promote disinformation for the price of a blue tick." "We have teamed up with the platforms to elevate reliable information around Covid and climate to amplify trusted messengers, and we have quite an army of them out there who want to take un content and promote it within their followings, and also educating users on how to slow the spread of disinformation." "Our new slogan that we want to have everybody have in their ear when they're online is 'pause, take care before you share'." "But yet we do feel like we are in an information war and that we need to massively ramp up our response." "So we're creating at the essential capacity to monitor and also have the ability to rapidly react when miss and disinformation and hate speech is threatening not just our people, our operations, but also the issues and the causes that we're working on." "But also we are going to be gearing up our verified initiative around climate change and developing this UN code of conduct on information integrity on digital platforms, hoping to set global standards that we can all advocate around, so that we can collectively work for more humane internet." The United Nations has announced a global effort to police the Internet for any "misinformation" that threatens the "issues and causes." Alarming.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Twitter firings have left us without a way to flag abusive or violent content. Disinformation can now be promoted by anyone with a blue tick. However, we are working with platforms to promote reliable information on COVID and climate change. We have a strong group of messengers who share UN content. We are also educating users on how to combat disinformation. Our new slogan is "pause, take care before you share." We are creating a central capacity at the UN to monitor and react to mis and disinformation. We will also develop a UN code of conduct for digital platforms to set global standards for information integrity. Our goal is a more humane Internet.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And of course, firings at Twitter have left us with no one to call to flag content that is abusive or even incitement to to violence. We're now seeing that almost anyone can promote disinformation for the price of a blue tick. So we've still it's not all bad. We have teamed up with the platforms, to elevate reliable information around COVID and climate, to amplify trusted messengers and we have quite an army of them out there who want to take UN content and promote it within their followings. And also educating users, on how to slow the spread of disinformation. Our new slogan that we want to have every everybody have in their ear when they're online is pause, take care before you share. But yet we do feel like we are in an information war and that we need to massively ramp up our response. So we're creating at the UN a central capacity to monitor, monitor and also have the ability to rapidly react when mis and disinformation and hate speech is threatening not just our people, our operations, but also the issues and the causes that we're working on. But also we're going to be gearing up our verified initiative around climate change and developing this UN code of conduct on information integrity on digital platforms, hoping to set global standards that we can all advocate around, so that we can collectively work for a more humane Internet.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

Full speech for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chu3T6CTaV4&t=2s&ab_channel=NobelPrize

backtolife_2023
Posted - September 18, 2023 at 10:05 AM
Saved - September 30, 2023 at 5:31 AM

@backtolife_2023 - Wittgenstein

Reminder - Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says free speech is a weapon of war, and censorship is necessary to protect free speech. Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q_4Cjki3SOM…

Video Transcript AI Summary
We launched an initiative to improve research on how automated processes curate online experiences. Understanding misinformation and disinformation is crucial. Ignoring this problem threatens the values we hold dear. Disinformation can perpetuate wars, hinder climate change efforts, and violate human rights. We must prevent these weapons of war from becoming normalized. Though we face many battles, there is cause for optimism. For every new weapon, there is a new tool to overcome it. We have the means, we just need the collective will.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This week, we launched an initiative alongside companies and nonprofits to help improve research and understanding of how a person's online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online, a challenge that we must as leaders address. Sadly, I think it's easy to dismiss this this problem is 1 in the margins, I can certainly understand the desire to leave it to someone else. As leaders, we are rightly concerned that even the most light light touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted as being hostile to values of free speech that we value so highly, but while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value. After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology. The weapons may be different, but the goals of those who perpetuate them is often the same, to cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves, to disband communities, to collect the collective strength of countries who work together, but we have an opportunity here to ensure that these particular weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare. In these times, I'm acutely aware of how easy it is to feel disheartened, we are facing many battles on many fronts, but there is cause for optimism because for every new weapon we face, there is a new tool to overcome it. For every attempt to push the world into chaos is a collective conviction to bring us back to order. We have the means. We just need the collective will.
iluminatibot
Posted - September 19, 2023 at 3:08 PM
Saved - September 19, 2023 at 7:47 PM

@iluminatibot - illuminatibot

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says free speech is a weapon of war, and censorship is necessary to protect free speech.

Video Transcript AI Summary
We launched an initiative to improve research on how automated processes curate online experiences. Understanding misinformation and disinformation is crucial. Ignoring this problem threatens the values we hold dear. It's important to address the challenge, as it affects ending wars, tackling climate change, and upholding human rights. Those who perpetuate chaos aim to weaken communities and countries. We must prevent these weapons from becoming a part of warfare. Despite facing many battles, there is cause for optimism. For every new weapon, there is a tool to overcome it. We have the means, we just need the collective will.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This week, we launched an initiative alongside companies and nonprofits to help improve research and understanding of how a person's online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online, a challenge that we must as leaders address. Sadly, I think it's easy to dismiss this problem is 1 in the margins, I can certainly understand the desire to leave it to someone else. As leaders, we are rightly concerned that even the most light touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted as being hostile to the values of free speech that we value so highly, but while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value. After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld when they are subject to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology. The weapons may be different, but the goals of those who perpetuate them is often the same, to cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves, to disband communities, to collect the collective give strength of countries who work together, but we have an opportunity here to ensure that these particular weapons of war do not become an establish part of warfare. In these times, I'm acutely aware of how easy it is to feel disheartened. We we are facing many battles on many fronts, but there is cause for optimism because for every new weapon we is based, there is a new tool to overcome it. For every attempt to push the world into chaos is a collective fiction to bring us back to order. We have the means. We just need the collective will.
JimFergusonUK
Posted - October 5, 2023 at 7:05 AM
Saved - November 21, 2023 at 3:32 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern promoted the COVID-19 vaccine while claiming the government was the sole source of reliable information. However, evidence suggests that she and her government exempted themselves from taking the mRNA shot. Ardern, a follower of the World Economic Forum's agenda, is seen as a dangerous cultist. Is the World Economic Forum a cult? For more details, refer to the provided reports.

@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson

#JacindaArdern former Prime Minister of #NewZealand pushed the vax like a cheap city block drug pusher while telling everyone that the Government was the only true source of information. However evidence has emerged that she and her Government decided they were exempt from taking the #mRNA shot!!! #GlobalParasite and #WEF2030Agenda disciple and cult member Ardern is a dangerous and weird cultist. Is the World Economic Forum a Cult? See report here ⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1709159686325367167?s=20 Read here ⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/new-zealand-govt-exempted-elite-from-deadly-covid-jabs-while-forcing-vax-on-public/

New Zealand Gov't Exempted Elite From 'Deadly' Covid Jabs, While Forcing Vax on Public - The People's Voice New Zealand's Ministry of Health granted vaccine exemptions to key staff while insisting the public be vaccinated. thepeoplesvoice.tv

@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson

Is the World Economic Forum a Cult. The command and control of members of the World Economic Forum by sole Chairman #Klaus Schwab is increasingly being likened to that of a #Cult leader. Unelected Schwab has groomed young people and assisted by other powerful fellow cult…

jgalt485
Posted - October 26, 2023 at 5:08 PM
Saved - October 26, 2023 at 6:16 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Scientists are urging the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare climate and nature crises as a global health emergency. Over 200 scientific journals support this call, stating that both crises are harmful to human health and should not be treated separately. Climate change contributes to the spread of infectious diseases, pollution affects clean water sources, and biodiversity loss hinders food security. Such a declaration would require member states to exchange information to address the issues. Critics argue that it could lead to mandatory lockdowns and restrictions on climate skepticism. The fight against "disinformation" is a priority for the WHO, as stated by its director-general. The aim is to rebuild trust between people, governments, and institutions. However, some view this as a threat to freedom of expression. The issue of combating misinformation is also emphasized by YGL Ardern, who advocates for collective action to control speech for the sake of societal stability. She believes that emerging technologies like AI offer governments significant opportunities. This push for censorship aligns with the agendas of various global organizations and governments.

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

1. Et voilà, ça commence ... Les "scientifiques" climatoscientistes (probablement ceux stipendiés par le GIEC, l'UE et l'ONU ) ont demandé à l'OMS que celle-ci déclare "les crises du climat et de la nature" comme étant une "urgence sanitaire"

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

2. Dans le même temps, plus de 200 revues scientifiques ont publié un appel en ce sens avant la prochaine Assemblée mondiale de la Santé au printemps 2024. Cet appel affirme que la crise climatique et la perte de biodiversité sont toutes deux nocives

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

3. pour la santé humaine et ne doivent pas être considérées séparément. 🤮🤮🤬 Le changement climatique, par exemple, contribue à la propagation de maladies contagieuses. La pollution nuit aux sources d’eau potable, et le déclin de la biodiversité rend plus difficile de nourrir

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

4. sainement l’humanité. La déclaration d’une urgence sanitaire est le niveau d’alerte le plus élevé que l’OMS puisse imposer. Tous les États membres seront alors tenus d’échanger des informations afin de maîtriser le problème en question.

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

6. La dernière fois que cela s’est produit, c’était pendant la pandémie de Corona. Ce message a été diffusé le 26.10.2023 sur Deutschlandfunk. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/wissenschaftler-wollen-dass-who-klima-und-naturkrise-zum-gesundheitsnotstand-erklaert-100.html

Gemeinsamer Aufruf - Wissenschaftler wollen, dass WHO Klima- und Naturkrise zum Gesundheitsnotstand erklärt Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler haben die Weltgesundheitsorganisation aufgefordert, die Klima- und die Naturkrise zum Gesundheitsnotstand zu erklären. deutschlandfunk.de

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

6. Ce qui autoriserait confinements obligatoires, interdiction de douter du climatoscientisme, au nom de la "lutte contre la désinformation" ... "indispensable à la sauvegarde des valeurs démocratiques" ... Monde orwellien, liberticide et dystopique !!

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

7. La lutte contre la "désinformation" est d'ailleurs le but premier de l'OMS, comme vient de l'annoncer le patron de l'OMS. Les Etats doivent ratifier le nouveau traité pandémie (et le règlement sanitaire international modifié), 🤮🤮🤬

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

8. car "la désinformation a érodé la confiance entre les peuples, les gouvernements et les institutions."🤣🤣🤣

Video Transcript AI Summary
The UN General Assembly adopted a declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, emphasizing the need for a collective approach. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused immense damage, affecting lives, economies, and societies. It has exposed political divisions and worsened inequalities, hitting the most vulnerable communities the hardest. It is not a matter of if, but when the next pandemic will occur. To address this, WHO member states are negotiating a new pandemic accord and amendments to international health regulations. However, it is crucial to go beyond negotiations and ensure national ratification and accountable implementation. We must break the cycle of panic and neglect to protect future generations. Together, we are stronger.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last month, the UN General Assembly adopted a political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, underscoring their commitment to meet shared threats with a shared response. The COVID nineteen pandemic appended lives and livelihoods disrupting societies and economies and exposed and exacerbated political fault lines within and between nations. It eroded trust between people, governments and institutions fueled by a torrent of mis and disinformation, and it laid bare the searing inequalities of our world with the poorest and most vulnerable communities the hardest hit. The next pandemic is not a question of if, but of when. And we cannot afford to repeat the same mistake of the past. That's why WHO member states are negotiating a new pandemic accord and amendments to the international health regulations to strengthen the legal framework for the global response to pandemics, and we can't stop there. We must follow through with national ratification and accountable implementation. For the sake of future generations, we must not go back to the old cycle of panic and neglect that left our world vulnerable. We are stronger together.

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

9. Un tel discours correspond à celui exposé à 'ONU par la YGL Ardern. Celle-ci milite pour la fin le liberté d'expression, qui "sème le chaos". "Nous en avons les moyens, il faut juste une volonté collective", soutient l'ex-Premier ministre néo-zélandais.

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

10. Evoquant la menace de la "désinformation" - qui en novlangue signifie tout ce qui s'écarte un tant soit peu de la doxa mondialiste, la YGL met en garde les élites dirigeantes: le problème ne saurait être ignoré. Pour Jacinda Ardern, ne pas combattre la liberté

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

11. d'expression représenterait... une menace à la liberté d'expression. Consciente que son combat "pourrait être mal interprété comme étant hostile aux valeurs qui nous sont si chères", l'ex-prêtresse du covidisme use d'un argument plus révélateur qu'elle n'imagine,

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

12. expliquant que sortir du carcan de la propagande occidentale ferait "s'effondrer la force collective des pays".

Video Transcript AI Summary
As leaders, we must address the challenge of disinformation without compromising free speech. Ignoring this issue threatens the values we hold dear. It's difficult to end a war if people believe it's legal and noble. Similarly, addressing climate change becomes challenging if people deny its existence. Upholding human rights is hindered by hateful rhetoric and dangerous ideologies. We face battles on multiple fronts, but there is hope. For every new weapon, there is a tool to overcome it. Despite attempts to create chaos, there is a collective determination to restore order. We have the means, we just need the collective will.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As leaders, we're rightly concerned that even the most light touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted as being hostile to the values of free speech that we value so highly. But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value. After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal, but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology? The weapons may be different, selves, to disband communities, to collapse the collective strength of countries who work together. We we are facing many battles on many fronts. But there is cause for optimism because for every new weapon we face, there is a new tool to overcome it. For every attempt to push the world into chaos is a collective conviction to bring us back to order. We have the means. We just need the collective will.

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

14. La tyranne Jacinda Ardern a été nommée à un nouveau poste de censure à l'université de Harvard... Son rôle consistera à utiliser des algorithmes d'IA pour faire du gouvernement "la seule source de vérité"... Jacinda Ardern affirme que

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

15. "les technologies émergentes telles que l'IA offrent d'énormes possibilités aux gouvernements". https://t.me/jqhnspartan/69046

Video Transcript AI Summary
New Zealand is facing a global issue, and there are many rumors circulating on social media. The speaker acknowledges seeing these rumors but cannot individually dismiss all of them. Instead, they want to assure the public that they will provide daily updates with the most current information. They encourage the public to trust them as a reliable source, as well as the director general of health and the ministry of health. They invite people to visit their website for clarification anytime.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: New Zealand state in the midst of what is a global issue, as you would expect, there are a number of rumors that circulate. I am present on social media. I see it myself. I cannot go around and individually dismiss every single rumor I see on social media as tinted as I might be. So instead, I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public. We will share with you the most up to date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the director general of health and the ministry of health. For that information, do feel free to visit at any time to clarify Any
JQHN SPARTAN La tyranne Jacinda Ardern a été nommée à un nouveau poste de censure à l'université de Harvard... Son rôle consistera à utiliser des algorithmes d'IA pour faire du gouvernement "la seule source de vérité"... Jacinda Ardern affirme que "les technologies émergentes telles que l'IA offrent d'énormes possibilités aux gouvernements". https://twitter.com/resist_05/status/1684005017202868224 Traduction : https://t.me/jqhnspartan t.me

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

16. Une prise de position qui serait risible si le programme n'était pas en phase d'implémentation express (https://t.me/kompromatmedia/3933) dans la plupart des démocratie libérales. Pustula La Hyène qui se félicite du DSA, et se fait corriger par les X mens .... 🤣🤣

KOMPROMAT «Protéger nos démocraties»: von der Leyen comblée par l'entrée en vigueur du DSA, ministère de la Vérité de l'UE «Nous transposons nos valeurs européennes dans le monde numérique», se félicite la technocrate en chef de l'UE. Ce en quoi elle n'a pas tort, la censure étant devenue une valeur cardinale du bloc ces dernières années. «Avec des règles strictes en matière de transparence et de responsabilité, notre loi sur les services numériques vise à protéger nos enfants, nos sociétés et nos démocraties», poursuit la disciple d'Orwell. Le Digital Service Act a pour objectif affiché d'éviter la propagation sur le net des contenus que le ministère de la Vérité jugera dangereux. En premier lieu desquels les «fake news» et la «propagande», qui ne sauraient évidemment venir du camp du bien. «Ils ont peur de la vérité, une arme tranchante», expliquait déjà Vladimir Poutine à propos de l'interdiction de RT. ▶️ #Opération_Mockingbird–«La CIA a compromis les journalistes du monde entier»—Kennedy @kompromatmedia t.me

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

17. Vous comprenez pourquoi le WEF, l'ONU, l'OMS, l'UE, tous les gouvernements veulent massivement censurer les RS. https://t.co/Jdmy8Q8fho

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

@Poulin2012 @55Bellechasse @andrebercoff @nicolasputsch @dreslincourt @JusteMilieu3 @Houdiakova @Tocsin_Media @EricMorillot @sergiodde @CPorteu @PhilippeMurer @rougeyronpierre @Carene1984 @Cercle_Aristote @lacavernemythe @VictorSinclair3 @TvlCampagnol @tvlofficiel @BlaiseElise

@jgalt485 - John Galt ⓩ 🇫🇷 cpt secours JohnGalt1 🇳🇱

@YvesPDB @philippeherlin @PanDanTag @tatiann69922625 @mmtchi @silvano_trotta @BugaultV @Don_Quichoute @TribunePop23 @Resistance_SM @fredbascunana @Stephane_Poli @LeBalou90 @HigueroLucien @PolFabrice @jaclostermann @SierraTango74 @GRAZIANILaetiza @FabianAllanic @PinsolleT RT merci

wideawake_media
Posted - November 15, 2023 at 8:41 AM
Saved - November 15, 2023 at 9:36 AM

@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media

"What we are seeing is a revolution against the system." World Economic Forum founder, Klaus Schwab, declares war on those of us who strive for less government intrusion into our lives. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTaB8jCpaGA Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a global emotional turmoil where facts no longer matter and fake news is gaining importance. People are angry and there is a revolution against the system. The anti-system movement, known as libertarianism, aims to dismantle any government influence on private lives. Fixing or suppressing the system is not enough; a completely new approach is needed to move forward.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are in a very emotionalized way, so it's an emotional turmoil in the world. People in some parts of the world are angry. Facts do not anymore count. Fake news may become more important than realities. You have this anti system movement. What we are seeing is a revolution against the system. So fixing, suppressing system is not enough. Now there is, of course, A anti system, which is called libertarianism, which means to tear down everything which creates some kind of Influence of government into private lives. If we want to go forward, We need a completely new
(The Real) Wide Awake Media My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word! t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes. News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes. wide-awake-media.com
wideawake_media
Posted - November 24, 2023 at 9:16 AM
Saved - November 24, 2023 at 11:41 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Former New Zealand PM, Jacinda Ardern, labels free speech a "weapon of war" in the globalist battle against "disinformation". She believes it exposes the agenda of unelected globalist technocrats. Watch her speech at the UN: [link]. For more content, visit: [link].

@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media

Speaking at the UN, WEF Young Global Leader and former PM of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, declares free speech a "weapon of war", in the globalist war against so-called "disinformation"―i.e. any information that exposes the agenda for global control by unelected globalist technocrats. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_4Cjki3SOM Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com

Video Transcript AI Summary
We launched an initiative to improve research on how automated processes curate online experiences. Understanding misinformation and disinformation is crucial, but we must address this challenge without compromising free speech. Ignoring it threatens the values we hold dear. If people don't believe a war exists, how can we end it? Hateful rhetoric and ideology undermine human rights. Those who perpetuate chaos aim to weaken others. We have an opportunity to prevent these weapons from becoming part of warfare. We have the means; we need the collective will.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This week, we launched an initiative alongside companies and nonprofits to help improve research and understanding of how a person's online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online, a challenge that we must, as leaders address. As leaders, we're rightly concerned that even the most light touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted are is being hostile to the values of free speech that we value so highly. But while I cannot Tell you today what the answer is to this challenge. I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value. After all, how do you successfully end a war if people curate are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only a change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology. The weapons may be different, but the goals curate of those who perpetuate them is often the same, to cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves. But we have an opportunity are here to ensure that these particular weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare. We are there is a new tool to overcome it. For every attempt to push the world into chaos is a collective conviction to bring us back to order. We have the means. We just need the collective will.
(The Real) Wide Awake Media My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word! t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes. News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes. wide-awake-media.com
WallStreetSilv
Posted - December 2, 2023 at 12:50 AM
Saved - December 3, 2023 at 11:48 PM

@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver

This is new a new video from the World Economic Forum. "UNESCO has a plan to help tackle online discrimination" Imagine an unelected group of self proclaimed global saviours, want to promote censorship. I couldn't imagine why ...... 🤡 🌎 They are desperate to control the narrative.

wideawake_media
Posted - December 10, 2023 at 11:20 AM
Saved - December 10, 2023 at 10:33 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Chrystia Freeland, a key member of the WEF's 'Board of Trustees' and deputy PM of Canada, has expressed concerns about democratic societies' ability to tackle climate change. While acknowledging democracy's imperfections, she questions if it can rise to the existential challenge posed by climate change. This raises concerns, considering the current globalist uniparties implementing similar policies under the guise of political opposition. The call for an end to even the façade of democracy is alarming.

@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media

Key member of the WEF's 'Board of Trustees' and deputy PM of Canada, Chrystia Freeland, openly declares war on the concept of democracy, in the name of tackling "climate change". "Our shrinking glaciers, and our warming oceans, are asking us wordlessly but emphatically, if democratic societies can rise to the existential challenge of climate change." Democracy is FAR from perfect, and what we have now―globalist uniparties taking turns at implementing the exact same globalist Net Zero/Agenda 2030 policies, while pretending to be political opponents―can barely be called democracy in the first place, but the fact that these globalist puppets now feel brazen enough to openly call for an end even to the façade they claim is democracy, is concerning to say the least. Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XJrbTryFe0U… Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com

Video Transcript AI Summary
We are living in a time of change, referred to as an inflection point by President Biden. This transformational moment raises the question of whether capitalist democracy still works. People are questioning if our children can rely on the promise of a more prosperous future. Additionally, the existential challenge of climate change is asking if democratic societies can rise to the occasion.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our time of tranquility is over, and we are living in an age of change. We're living through what President Biden, on a visit to my country in March, called an inflection point. A time of transformation, he said, that comes once every 5 or 6 generations. Now like it or not, You are graduating into that inflection point. What is this inflection point? What is this upheaval which is going to the roots of humanity itself. There are many ways to describe this transformational moment, but I think they all come down To one fundamental question, does capitalist democracy still work? That's the question being posed around kitchen tables in my country and this one. As parents wonder if our children Can count on capitalist democracy's essential promise of a future more prosperous than our present? It is the question being posed by our shrinking glaciers and our warming oceans, which are asking us Wordlessly but emphatically, if democratic societies can rise to the existential challenge of climate change
(The Real) Wide Awake Media My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word! t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes. News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes. wide-awake-media.com

@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media

Retweet if there is no "climate crisis"! T-shirt (and hoodie) available here: https://wideawake.clothing/collections/climate-change-t-shirts?filter.v.price.gte=&filter.v.price.lte=&sort_by=best-selling Currently running a 15% off December sale. Order ASAP for delivery by Christmas!

Climate Change T-Shirts Climate change t-shirts. wideawake.clothing
WallStreetSilv
Posted - January 16, 2024 at 5:34 PM
Saved - January 17, 2024 at 1:14 PM

@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver

The fascists in the European Union are preparing to shut down opposition speech. Ursula von der Leyen, Pres of the EU Commission, describes how they plan to establish control over social media platforms, the last form of media outside of their control. https://t.co/3W3ctrAK2c

Video Transcript AI Summary
In response to the global risk report, I want to address the concern of disinformation and misinformation. We have been focusing on this issue since the beginning of my term. Through the Digital Services Act, we have defined the responsibilities of large internet platforms in promoting and spreading content. This includes protecting children and vulnerable groups from hate speech. It is crucial to protect our offline values online, especially in the era of generative AI. The World Economic Forum Global Risk Report also highlights artificial intelligence as a top potential risk for the next decade.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Dear Klaus, let me go back to the number one concern of the global risk report Disinformation and misinformation. Tackling this has been our focus since the very beginning of my mandate. With our Digital Services Act, We defined the responsibilities of large Internet platforms on the content They promote and propagate. A responsible to children and vulnerable groups targeted by hate speech. But also a responsibility to our societies as a whole because the boundary between online and off line it's getting thinner and thinner. And the values we cherish off line should also be protected online. And this is even more important in this new era of generative AI. Now, the World Economic Forum Global Risk Report puts artificial intelligence As one of the top potential risks for the next decade.
RealAlexJones
Posted - January 20, 2024 at 1:34 AM
Saved - January 20, 2024 at 11:47 AM

@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones

WHO Head Calls For Global Police To Arrest Citizen Journalist Who Oppose UN Power Grab Share this video! https://t.co/sn3VnNRw8h

Video Transcript AI Summary
The WHO has announced a global police force to control and censor opposition. They plan to use medical tyranny to take over and are pushing for a world treaty. The head of WHO, Tedros, openly talks about using disease x for total control. However, people are waking up to their agenda. It is important to expose this for our own survival. On the other hand, Speaker 1 discusses the need for a pandemic agreement to better prepare for future outbreaks. They emphasize the importance of a shared response and hope that member states will deliver this agreement by May 2024. Speaker 2 promotes Infowars as a source of truthful information.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The WHO has just unveiled and announced a global police force to censor and control and arrest their opposition. They're gonna use medical tyranny for their take over folks. They have a world treaty going through it right now. I'm about to play a clip at the head of WHO. The Marxist Leninist Tedros talking about But these are desperate criminals. The world knows they created COVID in the lab. They know they released it. They know the shots are deadly. And so they're openly saying disease x is imminent, and we're gonna use this for total control. But humanity is waking up. We need to expose this like our lives depend on it because it does. Please take this video, share with everyone you know, let's stand against the UN that is nothing but a BlackRock front company for global tyranny. Speaker 1: To have better prepared and to address the disease x is the pandemic agreement. The pandemic agreement can bring all the experience, all the challenges that we have faced, and all the solutions into one. And that agreement can help us to prepare for the future in a better way because This is about a common enemy. And without a shared response, starting from the preparedness, We will face the same problem as COVID. And deadline for the pandemic agreement is May 2024, And member states are negotiating. This is between countries. And I hope they will deliver this pandemic agreement by that time, on the deadline. Because if this generation cannot do it, we are the lived community, we have the firsthand experience, I don't think the coming generation, the next generation will do it. So for our children and grandchildren's sake, I think we have to convert all the lessons we have learned into this pandemic and prepare the world for the future because this is a common global interest. And national interest very narrow national interest should not come into the way. Of course, national interest is natural, but it's the national interest that could be difficult and Affecting the negotiations even as we speak. So we are still not prepared, but I think there are many moving parts we have started, good ones, all of us together, that can prepare us better if we focus on the implementation of these, initiatives. Thank you and back to you. Speaker 2: While other networks lie to you about what's happening Now Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Visitinfowars.comforward/showandsharethelinktoday.
freddiesayers
Posted - April 17, 2024 at 1:24 PM
Saved - April 19, 2024 at 3:55 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I present a video report exposing the 'Global Disinformation Index' and its impact on political speech in Europe and the US. Please share this widely to raise awareness. Subtitles are available. Watch the full video to learn more about the efforts to defund @UnHerd.

@freddiesayers - Freddie Sayers

Here is the full length video report into the mysterious 'Global Disinformation Index' and how it censors political speech across Europe and the US. Please share widely, more people need to know. https://t.co/vz2cz36q2v

Video Transcript AI Summary
Unheard attended a parliamentary hearing on the future of news and discussed the issue of disinformation. They discovered a worldwide system of censorship that blocks certain websites from receiving ad revenue. Unheard was placed on the Global Disinformation Index's exclusion list, despite publishing well-known writers and interviewing influential figures. The GDI defines disinformation as narratives that are adversarial, even if factually accurate. The GDI is a government-funded organization that receives money from various sources. Unheard argues that this type of censorship is dangerous and stifles important discussions. They urge individuals and companies to be aware of where their ad dollars are going and to support independent media.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, and welcome back to Unheard. Well, normally, we don't like talking about ourselves much. There are too many important and interesting things going on elsewhere in the world. But today I was at the House of Lords in Westminster attending a special parliamentary hearing on the future of news. They had invited me to come, and there, we ended up talking a lot about disinformation. Because over the past few months, as part of our normal routine business, here at Unheard, we seem to have stumbled upon something really quite important, which is a worldwide system of censorship that crosses continents, and that we think more people need to know about. So it all started last year when we decided to put adverts on our website for the first time. We have a paid subscription, which I hope you are signing up to. We also have a cafe and a members club here in London. So we have a bunch of different revenue sources, but we've never had proper ads, so we wanted to add that. And we went to 3 successive ad agencies, each of which were really excited about our product. We have a large audience in the UK and the US, very influential people, etcetera. The numbers they were expecting us to get were very significant, and each time, in 3 successive times, we only got a tiny, tiny fraction of what was expected, and this was a real mystery. The ad agencies themselves were confused by it. Eventually, with the 3rd agency, they revealed what they were seeing on their internal dashboards. We were using an ad agency. They then used a technical platform called Grapeshot, which is a British company that was sold to Larry Ellison's Oracle back a few years ago, and Grapeshot in turn then pinged something called the Global Disinformation Index, all the way up the chain for information about, quote, unquote, brand safety, that is whether or not brands would wanna be associated with particular websites. It turns out we had been put on the GDI's dynamic exclusion list, which is basically their list of most dangerous publications, but you should not go anywhere near. Obviously, we were a bit baffled by this, as was our ad agency, because we published some of the most famous writers in the world, prize winning authors, professors from prestigious universities, we interview politicians, pop stars, cultural icons, playwrights, all sorts of people who you really wouldn't expect would end up on the exclusion list of some organization like that. So we complained, And eventually, after weeks of waiting, we got this in response. Speaker 1: Our team re reviewed the domain. The rating will not change as it continues to have anti LGBTQI plus narratives. The site authors have also been called out for being anti trans. Kathleen Stock is acknowledged as a prominent gender critical feminist. She has opposed transgender self identification in regards to proposed reforms in the 2004 UK Gender Recognition Act. Speaker 0: So I've got to confess, we were pretty outraged by that email. I mean, in the context of the Cass review here in the UK, which has just found the whole parts of the gender affirmation, so called medicine treatments that were offered over the past few years to children were under evidenced and irresponsible, in the context of that, the importance of publishing dissenting voices like Kathleen Stock, who that email references, should be even more obvious. The GDI added further links to articles by Julie Bindel, and another by Debbie Hayton, who is actually a trans woman, but who has a slightly different opinion about some of the ideology. Apparently, the GDI thinks that holding, quote unquote, gender critical beliefs, I. E. Believing that biological differences are real and matter, equates to disinformation, despite the fact, firstly, that those beliefs are now specifically protected in British law, since the Maya Forstater case we had here, it's actually enshrined in the Equalities Act that it's a protected characteristic, and it's also, polling evidence shows, held by the majority of the population. So you have a weird scenario where a a self appointed organization is deciding that a explicitly legal and majority held view is enough to get an entire website blocked from international ad exchanges. I offer that as just one example, which is current because it's happening right now, and the government is paying for this organization right now. Under the umbrella term of disinformation, there's been this huge blossoming of not for profits companies and indeed government agencies that can take very politicized views on things, without proper accountability and we should try to stop that. Speaker 2: That's a hugely powerful example you've just given. Speaker 0: Until relatively recently, disinformation wasn't even a word. It first became used popularly in the 19 eighties as a translation or a transliteration of the Soviet concept of desinformatsa, meaning deliberate dissemination of false reports as a tool to attack somebody. It started to gain some currency in a political context in the US in the 2000s, but like so much of our current culture war, it took off in 2016 with Trump, with Brexit, and then was supercharged during the COVID years of 2020 and 21. The reason for this, if you ask someone who is implanted in the disinformation movement, will be that suddenly out of nowhere during those years, all sorts of untrue things were being said and believed on the internet. That's how they view it. And no doubt, they would say that the Trump election, the Brexit result, and probably COVID were full of this worrying disinformation. The other way of looking at it is that establishment voices being challenged during those events by opinions that they didn't hold, and yet lots of people outside the Beltway did hold, had to come up with new measures to outlaw them, to deem other opinions as somehow unacceptable. It's a way of moving what should be a political conversation into the realm of expertise and saying, no, there is an official truth here, and if you don't agree with it, you are dangerous, you're irresponsible, your voice shouldn't be heard. Now, that has been happening a lot. Let's look at the chart of Google searches. This is provided by Google for disinformation between 2016 and 2022. Well, you can see that from June to December 2016, I. E. From the beginning of the Brexit period right the way through to the election of Trump, the search has already increased fourfold. And then from 2016 to 2022, they increased 30 times. So in other words, disinformation was created as a concept during that era. In response, what you see is that corporations, big technology companies, and governments all feel, 'Ah, there's this thing everyone's talking about, it's officially a danger, we have to do something in response.' And it creates a marketplace for enterprising people who have startups, who are commercially minded, or for people who want to have influence and build big not for profits that survive on government money, to suddenly say, hey, I'm a specialist in detecting misinformation and disinformation. Why don't you rely on me to go around judging whereabouts it exists on the Internet? One of these organizations is the Global Disinformation Index. Let's have a look at their history. The Global Disinformation Index was founded in the UK in 2018, and its objective, as it stated at the time, was explicitly to disrupt the business model for online disinformation by starving, offending publications of funding. Its 2 founders' CVs are, to put it mildly, straight out of central casting. Claire Melford's World Economic Forum biography states that before founding the GDI, she, quote, led the transition of the European Council on Foreign Relations from being part of George Soros' Open Society Foundation to independent status. Her co founder, Daniel Rogers, worked apparently, quote, in the US intelligence community, we don't have any more details than that, before founding a company called Turbium Labs that uses AI and machine learning to scour the Internet for illicit use of sensitive data. This he sold to Deloitte. If that all sounds a bit conspiratorial, I'm afraid it gets worse because alongside George Soros' Open Society Foundation, which gives money to the GDI, they also receive money from the UK government, via the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the European Union, the German Foreign Office, and a body called Dysinfo Cloud, which was created and funded by the US State Department. So just to be clear, this means the GDI is a government funded organization. From the UK, from Europe, and from the US, taxpayer dollars are flowing to sustain this mysterious body that is deciding which media websites have a business model and which ones don't. The governments, no doubt, feel like this is a responsible thing to do because they're helping fact checking and helping to solve disinformation. But if you look at the definition of how the GDI actually makes its decisions, things get even more interesting. When it was first founded back in 2018, they defined this term disinformation as, quote, deliberately false content designed to deceive. Now within those very strict parameters, you could make the case that it is useful to have fact checkers calling out the most egregious offenders, doing something useful for society. Personally, I think you're gonna run into trouble pretty quickly even if you go down that road, but you can see the logic. However, what they've done since 2018 is broaden the definition of what disinformation actually means. They now train both their algorithms and their researchers to look for something called, quote, an adversarial narrative. And that basically means stories that may be factually true, but which pit people against each other by attacking either an individual, an institution, or the science. It turns out that the founder of GDI, Claire Melford, gave an interview back in 2021 at the London School of Economics, where she explained all this very straightforwardly. She said Speaker 2: Because a lot of disinformation is, I hope I've shown, is not just whether something is true or false, it, escapes from the the limits of fact checking. Something can be factually accurate but still extremely harmful, And it leads us to a a perhaps a more useful definition of disinformation, which is, it's, instantiated through these different narratives. It is it's not saying something is or is not disinformation, but it is saying content on this site or this particular article is content that is anti immigrant, content that is anti women, content that is anti semitic. Speaker 0: She explains that larger traffic websites like ours are manually rated by humans, but most are rated using automatic AI, and that they've built this so called adversarial narrative into the AI. Speaker 2: And we actually instantiate our definition of disinformation as adversarial narrative, topics within the technology. So each adversarial narrative is given its own machine learning classifier, which then allows us to search for content that matches that narrative at scale. So you'll see on the, top right of this some colorful bars. It these these are screenshots from our internal, dashboards of our of our technology stack. The the colorful bars, each of them represent a different narrative, so you can see, misogyny, Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti black content, climate change denial, etcetera. Speaker 0: So it looks technical. There's lots of charts, but actually, Melford's team and her algorithm are basically looking for things that she finds offensive, that she doesn't agree with, and the result of those decisions is to defund and break the business models of those publications. When she starts listing her passion projects, the things that she herself is moved by, I'm afraid the list is somewhat predictable, including support for the January 6th Insurrections, the pernicious influence of, quote, white men in Silicon Valley, and of course, anything that might undermine the global response to the existential challenge of climate change. So each of those issues, of course, she has her complete right to be moved by and think are very important. I would not challenge that. But those issues are highly contentious, people have a wide range of legitimate views on them, and they require robust uncensored discussion if we're ever gonna find good solutions for them. One way to not find those solutions is to try and centrally control a one particular narrative and shut down anyone who dissents. In the case of science, challenges to the orthodoxy are the be all and end all of science. You need that in order to reach good outcomes, and I'm afraid the huge failures of the official response to COVID-nineteen is the perfect demonstration of this. In fact, in Claire Melford's lecture that she gave at the LSE, one of the examples she handpicked to showcase the good work of the Global Disinformation Index was a particular example on a Spanish language website from June 2021 about the delta variant of COVID 19. Speaker 2: This is a Spanish language site, elerta de jitale, talking about how a third of deaths in the United Kingdom from the delta variant are amongst those people who are vaccinated, which is clearly untrue. And it's, Chipotle who has been caught, next to this ad and, unfortunately for them, has funded this highly disinformation about vaccines. Speaker 0: Highly dangerous disinformation about vaccines is what Claire Melford calls it, but a little fact checking tells a bit of a different story. The statistic being reported in that Spanish language website comes from a June 2021 Public Health England report into COVID variants that, in table 6 on page 15, sets out the 42 known deaths from the Delta variant that happened in 2021 between January June. Of those, it sets out 23 were unvaccinated, 7 were vaccinated with 1 shot, and 12 were fully vaccinated. In other words, 29%, roughly a third, were fully vaccinated, and an additional 17% were partially vaccinated, making a total, by my count, of around 45% who were vaccinated to some degree. So the headline on the Spanish language website claiming roughly a third was not inaccurate at all. If anything, it underplayed the severity of the story. The only disinformation in that example is in fact GDI's claim that it's untrue, which still stands uncorrected on YouTube. Examples like this are easy to find. Right there on the GDI website is a 2020 blog, still standing, unedited, no footnote, about the quote, Wuhan Lab conspiracy theory about the origins of COVID-nineteen, and how cutting off ads to these fringe sites and their outer networks is the first action needed. This is still there long after Facebook and other big tech companies have even corrected their policies and conceded that the so called lab leak theory was, at the very least, a legitimate hypothesis and should never have been censored. So where have we got to? It would be bad enough if there were mysterious, unaccountable organizations funded by government money just deciding what was true and what was not true in some kind of fact checking operation, and trying to shut people down who they disagreed with. Because as I think we've demonstrated, it's very hard to have an official version of truth, and you end up shutting out important alternative viewpoints. But this is way worse, because by redefining disinformation as quote unquote adversarial narratives, they're pretty much taking in all of journalism. I mean, look at any front page, whether it is the Daily Mirror, The Guardian, The New York Post, The New York Times, 9 times out of 10 it's pretty adversarial, and in fact, usually that's a good thing, because the official narrative needs challenging, and journalists used to think it was part of their job to be adversarial to it. So what is happening here is actually a lot more dangerous and a lot more widespread than anyone realizes. Unlike over here in the UK and in Europe, some people in the US have already started taking action against the Global Disinformation Index. Things began to get a bit worse for them in December 20 22 when they put out a report that pretty much overstepped the mark because they listed publicly their 10 most dangerous websites, the websites or publications that they think are most at risk for disinformation. And let's take a look at them. Yes, there they are, pretty much all of them conservative leaning. Then accompanying it, they chose their least dangerous websites, the websites that were most trustworthy, and there they are, at least 9 out of 10 of them, liberal or left leaning. In response, there have been legal cases. First of all, some of these publications, including The Daily Wire and The Federalist, have teamed up with the attorney general of Texas to sue the state department for funding GDI and NewsGuard and similar entities that they say infringes their First Amendment rights. That's still in the courts. And separately, an initiative to prevent the Defense Department legally from using any advertiser that itself uses NewsGuard or the Global Disinformation Index or similar entities, has actually been successful. It's part of federal law. But the GDI is a British company. It has a US not for profit and a European, but it is a British company. And a recent question in the House of Commons that was written by MP Philip Davis actually got an answer. That £2,600,000 was given in the period up to last year to the GDI, and that, surprise, surprise, there is still frequent contact between the GDI and the Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit. The truth is that the Global Disinformation Index is just the tip of the iceberg. This problem is much more widespread than just one organisation. And it comes down, I think, to a misunderstanding, something we've seen a huge amount of since 2016, since that populist revolt that happened in both Britain and the US. The people on the other side of it let's call them the establishment, people who are used to being in charge, who are used to having a certain spectrum of belief when they're challenged outside of it, they have 2 choices: either they try and reach across to those people who no longer believe them and persuade them that they have good answers, engage in a genuine democratic discussion, or if they're feeling frightened, if they're feeling on the back foot, they try to just shut them down. And this is really what the whole disinformation movement is about. So if they want to improve trust, if they want to bring people together, the only way is to have a free and honest conversation about things. The role of government, if there is a role, must be to stop monopoly powers and stop enormous, highly funded tech and vested interests coalescing around a particular ideological viewpoint and trying to police it, that is the way to make it worse, not better. Private companies also have a really important role to play. If you're involved in the ad industry or if your corporation or your company spends any money on advertising, check: are you relying on one of these networks that itself gets partisan information from organizations like the GDI? And if so, stop using them. Are you spending your ad dollars on a wide range of websites with different political views, or are they all going to a particular collection that agree with each other? By the way, you're actually not reaching the whole population if you're doing that, so it's not even good commerce. And if you're the boss of a big organization, make sure you know what's happening further down the food chain, because quite often there will be ideological people in the lower reaches of your organization that are deliberately diverting money from that company towards particular ideological viewpoints. For example, last year, Oracle announced that it was cutting ties with the GDI precisely on free speech grounds, but they are still collaborating. Is the boss of Oracle, Larry Ellison, aware of this? And if you are an educated campaigner, like Clare Melford Claire, by the way, come on the show, you didn't respond to our request for comment, but if you want to discuss this further, we are waiting and would love to have a conversation I believe that although you may think you're doing the world a service, in fact, what you are doing is intensifying our path towards becoming more radicalized and more divided. If you've been listening to this and would like to help, the one thing you can do is sign up. We have a paid subscription at UnHerd. It costs a tiny amount, and there are lots of deals ongoing all the time, but it makes a huge to us. And if they try and defund us, they try and shut down the advertising, at least if we have our loyal subscriber base, we'll be fine, and we can carry on challenging the narrative. Go to unheard.com/join.

@freddiesayers - Freddie Sayers

With subtitles:

@unherd - UnHerd

INVESTIGATION: We shine a light on the “Global Disinformation Index,” an international, government-funded “ratings agency” that is trying to defund @UnHerd on spurious grounds. Watch and share full video ⬇️ https://t.co/45eRH6DDnJ

Video Transcript AI Summary
Unheard attended a parliamentary hearing on the future of news and discussed the issue of disinformation. They discovered a global system of censorship that blocks certain websites from receiving ads. Unheard was placed on the Global Disinformation Index's exclusion list, despite publishing reputable content. The GDI defines disinformation as adversarial narratives, which allows them to target publications they disagree with. The GDI is funded by various governments and organizations, including the UK government. They determine what is considered disinformation and have listed conservative-leaning websites as the most dangerous. Legal action has been taken against the GDI for infringing on First Amendment rights. The problem of censorship extends beyond the GDI, and it is important for individuals and companies to be aware of where their ad dollars are going.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, and welcome back to Unheard. Well, normally, we don't like talking about ourselves much. There are too many important and interesting things going on elsewhere in the world. But today I was at the House of Lords in Westminster attending a special parliamentary hearing on the future of news. They had invited me to come, and there, we ended up talking a lot about disinformation. Because over the past few months, as part of our normal routine business, here at Unheard, we seem to have stumbled upon something really quite important, which is a worldwide system of censorship that crosses continents, and that we think more people need to know about. So it all started last year when we decided to put adverts on our website for the first time. We have a paid subscription, which I hope you are signing up to. We also have a cafe and a members club here in London. So we have a bunch of different revenue sources, but we've never had proper ads, so we wanted to add that. And we went to 3 successive ad agencies, each of which were really excited about our product. We have a large audience in the UK and the US, very influential people, etcetera. The numbers they were expecting us to get were very significant, and each time, in 3 successive times, we only got a tiny, tiny fraction of what was expected, and this was a real mystery. The ad agencies themselves were confused by it. Eventually, with the 3rd agency, they revealed what they were seeing on their internal dashboards. We were using an ad agency. They then used a technical platform called Grapeshot, which is a British company that was sold to Larry Ellison's Oracle back a few years ago, and Grapeshot in turn then pinged something called the Global Disinformation Index, all the way up the chain for information about, quote, unquote, brand safety, that is whether or not brands would wanna be associated with particular websites. It turns out we had been put on the GDI's dynamic exclusion list, which is basically their list of most dangerous publications, but you should not go anywhere near. Obviously, we were a bit baffled by this, as was our ad agency, because we published some of the most famous writers in the world, prize winning authors, professors from prestigious universities, we interview politicians, pop stars, cultural icons, playwrights, all sorts of people who you really wouldn't expect would end up on the exclusion list of some organization like that. So we complained, And eventually, after weeks of waiting, we got this in response. Speaker 1: Our team re reviewed the domain. The rating will not change as it continues to have anti LGBTQI plus narratives. The site authors have also been called out for being anti trans. Kathleen Stock is acknowledged as a prominent gender critical feminist. She has opposed transgender self identification in regards to proposed reforms in the 2004 UK Gender Recognition Act. Speaker 0: So I've got to confess, we were pretty outraged by that email. I mean, in the context of the Cass review here in the UK, which has just found the whole parts of the gender affirmation, so called medicine treatments that were offered over the past few years to children were under evidenced and irresponsible, in the context of that, the importance of publishing dissenting voices like Kathleen Stock, who that email references, should be even more obvious. The GDI added further links to articles by Julie Bindel, and another by Debbie Hayton, who is actually a trans woman, but who has a slightly different opinion about some of the ideology. Apparently, the GDI thinks that holding, quote unquote, gender critical beliefs, I. E. Believing that biological differences are real and matter, equates to disinformation, despite the fact, firstly, that those beliefs are now specifically protected in British law, since the Maya Forstater case we had here, it's actually enshrined in the Equalities Act that it's a protected characteristic, and it's also, polling evidence shows, held by the majority of the population. So you have a weird scenario where a a self appointed organization is deciding that a explicitly legal and majority held view is enough to get an entire website blocked from international ad exchanges. I offer that as just one example, which is current because it's happening right now, and the government is paying for this organization right now. Under the umbrella term of disinformation, there's been this huge blossoming of not for profits companies and indeed government agencies that can take very politicized views on things, without proper accountability and we should try to stop that. Speaker 2: That's a hugely powerful example you've just given. Speaker 0: Until relatively recently, disinformation wasn't even a word. It first became used popularly in the 19 eighties as a translation or a transliteration of the Soviet concept of desinformatsa, meaning deliberate dissemination of false reports as a tool to attack somebody. It started to gain some currency in a political context in the US in the 2000s, but like so much of our current culture war, it took off in 2016 with Trump, with Brexit, and then was supercharged during the COVID years of 2020 and 21. The reason for this, if you ask someone who is implanted in the disinformation movement, will be that suddenly out of nowhere during those years, all sorts of untrue things were being said and believed on the internet. That's how they view it. And no doubt, they would say that the Trump election, the Brexit result, and probably COVID were full of this worrying disinformation. The other way of looking at it is that establishment voices being challenged during those events by opinions that they didn't hold, and yet lots of people outside the Beltway did hold, had to come up with new measures to outlaw them, to deem other opinions as somehow unacceptable. It's a way of moving what should be a political conversation into the realm of expertise and saying, no, there is an official truth here, and if you don't agree with it, you are dangerous, you're irresponsible, your voice shouldn't be heard. Now, that has been happening a lot. Let's look at the chart of Google searches. This is provided by Google for disinformation between 2016 and 2022. Well, you can see that from June to December 2016, I. E. From the beginning of the Brexit period right the way through to the election of Trump, the search has already increased fourfold. And then from 2016 to 2022, they increased 30 times. So in other words, disinformation was created as a concept during that era. In response, what you see is that corporations, big technology companies, and governments all feel, 'Ah, there's this thing everyone's talking about, it's officially a danger, we have to do something in response.' And it creates a marketplace for enterprising people who have startups, who are commercially minded, or for people who want to have influence and build big not for profits that survive on government money, to suddenly say, hey, I'm a specialist in detecting misinformation and disinformation. Why don't you rely on me to go around judging whereabouts it exists on the Internet? One of these organizations is the Global Disinformation Index. Let's have a look at their history. The Global Disinformation Index was founded in the UK in 2018, and its objective, as it stated at the time, was explicitly to disrupt the business model for online disinformation by starving, offending publications of funding. Its 2 founders' CVs are, to put it mildly, straight out of central casting. Claire Melford's World Economic Forum biography states that before founding the GDI, she, quote, led the transition of the European Council on Foreign Relations from being part of George Soros' Open Society Foundation to independent status. Her co founder, Daniel Rogers, worked apparently, quote, in the US intelligence community, we don't have any more details than that, before founding a company called Turbium Labs that uses AI and machine learning to scour the Internet for illicit use of sensitive data. This he sold to Deloitte. If that all sounds a bit conspiratorial, I'm afraid it gets worse because alongside George Soros' Open Society Foundation, which gives money to the GDI, they also receive money from the UK government, via the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the European Union, the German Foreign Office, and a body called Dysinfo Cloud, which was created and funded by the US State Department. So just to be clear, this means the GDI is a government funded organization. From the UK, from Europe, and from the US, taxpayer dollars are flowing to sustain this mysterious body that is deciding which media websites have a business model and which ones don't. The governments, no doubt, feel like this is a responsible thing to do because they're helping fact checking and helping to solve disinformation. But if you look at the definition of how the GDI actually makes its decisions, things get even more interesting. When it was first founded back in 2018, they defined this term disinformation as, quote, deliberately false content designed to deceive. Now within those very strict parameters, you could make the case that it is useful to have fact checkers calling out the most egregious offenders, doing something useful for society. Personally, I think you're gonna run into trouble pretty quickly even if you go down that road, but you can see the logic. However, what they've done since 2018 is broaden the definition of what disinformation actually means. They now train both their algorithms and their researchers to look for something called, quote, an adversarial narrative. And that basically means stories that may be factually true, but which pit people against each other by attacking either an individual, an institution, or the science. It turns out that the founder of GDI, Claire Melford, gave an interview back in 2021 at the London School of Economics, where she explained all this very straightforwardly. She said Speaker 2: Because a lot of disinformation is, I hope I've shown, is not just whether something is true or false, it, escapes from the the limits of fact checking. Something can be factually accurate but still extremely harmful, And it leads us to a a perhaps a more useful definition of disinformation, which is, it's, instantiated through these different narratives. It is it's not saying something is or is not disinformation, but it is saying content on this site or this particular article is content that is anti immigrant, content that is anti women, content that is anti semitic. Speaker 0: She explains that larger traffic websites like ours are manually rated by humans, but most are rated using automatic AI, and that they've built this so called adversarial narrative into the AI. Speaker 2: And we actually instantiate our definition of disinformation as adversarial narrative, topics within the technology. So each adversarial narrative is given its own machine learning classifier, which then allows us to search for content that matches that narrative at scale. So you'll see on the, top right of this some colorful bars. It these these are screenshots from our internal, dashboards of our of our technology stack. The the colorful bars, each of them represent a different narrative, so you can see, misogyny, Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti black content, climate change denial, etcetera. Speaker 0: So it looks technical. There's lots of charts, but actually, Melford's team and her algorithm are basically looking for things that she finds offensive, that she doesn't agree with, and the result of those decisions is to defund and break the business models of those publications. When she starts listing her passion projects, the things that she herself is moved by, I'm afraid the list is somewhat predictable, including support for the January 6th Insurrections, the pernicious influence of, quote, white men in Silicon Valley, and of course, anything that might undermine the global response to the existential challenge of climate change. So each of those issues, of course, she has her complete right to be moved by and think are very important. I would not challenge that. But those issues are highly contentious, people have a wide range of legitimate views on them, and they require robust uncensored discussion if we're ever gonna find good solutions for them. One way to not find those solutions is to try and centrally control a one particular narrative and shut down anyone who dissents. In the case of science, challenges to the orthodoxy are the be all and end all of science. You need that in order to reach good outcomes, and I'm afraid the huge failures of the official response to COVID-nineteen is the perfect demonstration of this. In fact, in Claire Melford's lecture that she gave at the LSE, one of the examples she handpicked to showcase the good work of the Global Disinformation Index was a particular example on a Spanish language website from June 2021 about the delta variant of COVID 19. Speaker 2: This is a Spanish language site, elerta de jitale, talking about how a third of deaths in the United Kingdom from the delta variant are amongst those people who are vaccinated, which is clearly untrue. And it's, Chipotle who has been caught, next to this ad and, unfortunately for them, has funded this highly disinformation about vaccines. Speaker 0: Highly dangerous disinformation about vaccines is what Claire Melford calls it, but a little fact checking tells a bit of a different story. The statistic being reported in that Spanish language website comes from a June 2021 Public Health England report into COVID variants that, in table 6 on page 15, sets out the 42 known deaths from the Delta variant that happened in 2021 between January June. Of those, it sets out 23 were unvaccinated, 7 were vaccinated with 1 shot, and 12 were fully vaccinated. In other words, 29%, roughly a third, were fully vaccinated, and an additional 17% were partially vaccinated, making a total, by my count, of around 45% who were vaccinated to some degree. So the headline on the Spanish language website claiming roughly a third was not inaccurate at all. If anything, it underplayed the severity of the story. The only disinformation in that example is in fact GDI's claim that it's untrue, which still stands uncorrected on YouTube. Examples like this are easy to find. Right there on the GDI website is a 2020 blog, still standing, unedited, no footnote, about the quote, Wuhan Lab conspiracy theory about the origins of COVID-nineteen, and how cutting off ads to these fringe sites and their outer networks is the first action needed. This is still there long after Facebook and other big tech companies have even corrected their policies and conceded that the so called lab leak theory was, at the very least, a legitimate hypothesis and should never have been censored. So where have we got to? It would be bad enough if there were mysterious, unaccountable organizations funded by government money just deciding what was true and what was not true in some kind of fact checking operation, and trying to shut people down who they disagreed with. Because as I think we've demonstrated, it's very hard to have an official version of truth, and you end up shutting out important alternative viewpoints. But this is way worse, because by redefining disinformation as quote unquote adversarial narratives, they're pretty much taking in all of journalism. I mean, look at any front page, whether it is the Daily Mirror, The Guardian, The New York Post, The New York Times, 9 times out of 10 it's pretty adversarial, and in fact, usually that's a good thing, because the official narrative needs challenging, and journalists used to think it was part of their job to be adversarial to it. So what is happening here is actually a lot more dangerous and a lot more widespread than anyone realizes. Unlike over here in the UK and in Europe, some people in the US have already started taking action against the Global Disinformation Index. Things began to get a bit worse for them in December 20 22 when they put out a report that pretty much overstepped the mark because they listed publicly their 10 most dangerous websites, the websites or publications that they think are most at risk for disinformation. And let's take a look at them. Yes, there they are, pretty much all of them conservative leaning. Then accompanying it, they chose their least dangerous websites, the websites that were most trustworthy, and there they are, at least 9 out of 10 of them, liberal or left leaning. In response, there have been legal cases. First of all, some of these publications, including The Daily Wire and The Federalist, have teamed up with the attorney general of Texas to sue the state department for funding GDI and NewsGuard and similar entities that they say infringes their First Amendment rights. That's still in the courts. And separately, an initiative to prevent the Defense Department legally from using any advertiser that itself uses NewsGuard or the Global Disinformation Index or similar entities, has actually been successful. It's part of federal law. But the GDI is a British company. It has a US not for profit and a European, but it is a British company. And a recent question in the House of Commons that was written by MP Philip Davis actually got an answer. That £2,600,000 was given in the period up to last year to the GDI, and that, surprise, surprise, there is still frequent contact between the GDI and the Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit. The truth is that the Global Disinformation Index is just the tip of the iceberg. This problem is much more widespread than just one organisation. And it comes down, I think, to a misunderstanding, something we've seen a huge amount of since 2016, since that populist revolt that happened in both Britain and the US. The people on the other side of it let's call them the establishment, people who are used to being in charge, who are used to having a certain spectrum of belief when they're challenged outside of it, they have 2 choices: either they try and reach across to those people who no longer believe them and persuade them that they have good answers, engage in a genuine democratic discussion, or if they're feeling frightened, if they're feeling on the back foot, they try to just shut them down. And this is really what the whole disinformation movement is about. So if they want to improve trust, if they want to bring people together, the only way is to have a free and honest conversation about things. The role of government, if there is a role, must be to stop monopoly powers and stop enormous, highly funded tech and vested interests coalescing around a particular ideological viewpoint and trying to police it, that is the way to make it worse, not better. Private companies also have a really important role to play. If you're involved in the ad industry or if your corporation or your company spends any money on advertising, check: are you relying on one of these networks that itself gets partisan information from organizations like the GDI? And if so, stop using them. Are you spending your ad dollars on a wide range of websites with different political views, or are they all going to a particular collection that agree with each other? By the way, you're actually not reaching the whole population if you're doing that, so it's not even good commerce. And if you're the boss of a big organization, make sure you know what's happening further down the food chain, because quite often there will be ideological people in the lower reaches of your organization that are deliberately diverting money from that company towards particular ideological viewpoints. For example, last year, Oracle announced that it was cutting ties with the GDI precisely on free speech grounds, but they are still collaborating. Is the boss of Oracle, Larry Ellison, aware of this? And if you are an educated campaigner, like Clare Melford Claire, by the way, come on the show, you didn't respond to our request for comment, but if you want to discuss this further, we are waiting and would love to have a conversation I believe that although you may think you're doing the world a service, in fact, what you are doing is intensifying our path towards becoming more radicalized and more divided. If you've been listening to this and would like to help, the one thing you can do is sign up. We have a paid subscription at UnHerd. It costs a tiny amount, and there are lots of deals ongoing all the time, but it makes a huge to us. And if they try and defund us, they try and shut down the advertising, at least if we have our loyal subscriber base, we'll be fine, and we can carry on challenging the narrative. Go to unheard.com/join.
COUNTERSPIN111
Posted - April 21, 2024 at 9:13 AM
Saved - April 22, 2024 at 1:48 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is accused of exploiting the Christchurch massacre and promoting the pandemic hoax. The author criticizes her attempts to control the internet and silence dissenting voices. Counterspin Media, facing charges for exposing the scam, vows to defend truth and resist suppression.

@COUNTERSPIN111 - COUNTERSPIN MEDIA NZ

The WEF sponsored puppet and criminal, former Prime Minister Jacinda Adern, exploited the March 15th, 2019 'Christchurch massacre' for her own ends. Once she was seen as a strong and kind virtuous leader, she was well equipped to advance the next scam to hit New Zealand (and the world) - the great pandemic hoax! Heralded on the international stage and bolstered by the usual presstitute media stories backing up the con, she now prances all over the world attempting to control the internet and silence any dissenting voices against the globalist agenda. All backed by the current NZ government headed by Christopher (just as guilty) Luxon. Anyone with a functional brain knows that the official narrative of that 'incident' is, quite frankly, bullshit, and has more holes in it, than Swiss cheese! Counterspin Media's Kelvyn Alp & Hannah Spierer are facing charges of up to 14yrs in prison for daring to highlight the scam. One other is facing up to 7yrs. Jacinda, was this video one of the rehearsals to ensure maximum buy-in from an emotional public? Was it included in your 'enquiry?' No matter what force you bring against us, whether lawfare, the criminal police force, economic attacks, or character assassinations, Counterspin Media is one platform that you shall not break! We will be New Zealand's last line of defence of truth. We shall not be silenced! @HannahSpierer @CounterspinZ @samcostelloNZ @UnitedFreePres @reallyohsure @davewillia19910 @David75575497 @DertySesh @Silenthorizen @MrsBerserker @ron777 @Melahi65919940 @HArdYards1000 @onyxnz @NzFubar @NZMAGAMike @Kiwi4Justice @MikeNewZ @arcofjoan1214 @DailyTelegraph5 @BarryYoungNZ @c_plushie @james_freeman @RealAlexJones @TuckerCarlson @davidicke @joerogan

Video Transcript AI Summary
A man is seen laying against a wall, joined by another person. They both lay down, one possibly injured. A cleric appears to be tending to the injured man, holding something red. The injured man shows no signs of bleeding. The cleric then moves around, possibly preparing something. Another man is on the phone, seemingly unfazed by the situation. The scene ends with confusion about the events unfolding.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good day. I'm just gonna show you some more curious or strange, behaviors. We're gonna start this one with this guy laying down over against the wall over there. He looks alright, and I hope he is alright. And then we're gonna just zip through a little bit further. And now he's being joined by somebody else who was slipping himself in tops to tails style. You know, like when you're a kid and your cousin would come over and stay. And what's the deal with this blue bag? Strange. Anyway, when we swing the bike around, you can see him starting to get himself into position. And his other mate, he's looking up talking to the is it the imam or the or the mufti or something? I'm sorry. I don't really know the ins and outs of that religion. I apologize if I said the wrong thing. And now when we come back, they're both laying down and having a little bit of a kip because this acting lark is tiring, isn't it? Still there, laying down, having a little bit of a kip, and he's got feet crossed as well, just making himself a little bit more comfortable. So we whiz back around again. And now when we get a closer look, we can see it looks like he's on on the phone. So I thought that was a little odd. And then the camera moves around and around and around. And eventually, we come back facing the same way we started, and we can see that now Buddy's top tails, mate, like his cousin from the sleepover, has decided to go sleep somewhere else. Also, I wanna have a little bit of a chat. Like I said, I'm not sure of the correct terminology. Is it the Mufti or the the imam or something? He looks like the, official, cleric of of the musking team over the back. There, he has the long gray gear on. And we've also got this bloke in the back with really blood stained t shirt. Looks like he might have been shot in that in the chest or in the shoulder or something. Lost a lot of blood, but doesn't seem to be dripping any. And we can see now that the Mufti sorry. I've got distracted. I thought I was talking about you guys laying down again. I'll call him the Mufti. If I'm wrong, I apologize. So please accept my apology before. It's out of ignorance. Was leaning over, the seriously wounded looking guy, and now it seems that he was making a signal, referring to the head. Now we can also see leaning against this pole is our heavily, bloodied white shirt guy who is still not leaving any blood no matter where he's standing. It's such a horrible wound that would require there is again, that would result in such blood soaking. You'd expect that it'd still be probably pouring out of him, but I don't know. I have no medicals. And here is our, cleric again, and I just wonder here if he was, preparing something. It looks like he's got something in his hand, and it's very red. But I can't be sure, so I'll just run it through a few times. Either his hands are covered in, red matter or he has just picked up a little vessel containing red matter. It's hard to say, but it looks strange. And then he is ready for this scene. So I think it seems like he was looking at him before, then he's gone back over to look at the phone or whatever at the at the window. He's come back appearing to carry something. And here's our old mate, again, still not leaving any trail. He's gonna have a little rest over on the chair. And with that, the area where he's been standing for the last, you know, few seconds, few half a minute or so, and there was no mess left from him by the on the carpet. And we'll finish with this guy who's still on the phone. Maybe he's taken selfies and uploading them to Facebook. And what's this all about?
newstart_2024
Posted - July 4, 2024 at 7:00 PM
Saved - July 5, 2024 at 10:30 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The United Nations, led by Secretary General Antonio Guterres, has released a game-plan called Global Principles for Information Integrity. This plan aims to combat harmful misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech online while upholding freedom of speech. Guterres urges governments, technology companies, media, and advertisers to establish official narratives and silence opposition voices. The UN supports Big Tech's control over online information and seeks to further control online speech. Critics argue that this is an attack on free speech and truth, as it allows global power systems to avoid accountability for their actions. The UN's information surveillance and control system not only censors but also manipulates people's behavior and thoughts, creating a world where individuals surrender their sovereignty to false authorities.

@newstart_2024 - Camus

Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, (UN) just released the globalist’s latest game-plan for population control, surveillance and censorship. The game-plan, titled Global Principles for Information Integrity, seeks to put an end to “harmful misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech” online, all while “upholding human rights such as the freedom of speech.” Guterres presented the game-plan with a sense of urgency, commanding governments, technology companies, the media and advertisers to take control and establish official narratives, while quashing opposition voices. The UN supports Big Tech’s algorithmic control over the information stream online and seeks to control online speech further. A global body of elites seek to delete what they believe is the disinformation, and they seek to discredit and demonetize the voices of dissent. All the censorship coming from global power systems is war on free speech, but it’s also a war on truth, so that these power systems cannot be held to account for their abuses. The UN is erecting an information surveillance and control system that crafts authoritarian narratives that limit access to life saving knowledge. These control systems not only censor, but they train people what to say, how to behave, and what to think. The UN wants to create a world of simps who surrender their sovereignty and bow down to manipulative and abusive entities and false authorities.

@newstart_2024 - Camus

https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-07-02-united-nations-declares-war-on-free-speech.html

UN declares war on FREE SPEECH to censor the TRUTH, subvert accountability, control populations – NaturalNews.com Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, (UN) just released the globalist’s latest game-plan for population control, surveillance and censorship. The game-plan, titled Global Principles for Information Integrity, seeks to put an end to “harmful misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech” online, all while “upholding human rights such as the freedom of speech.” Guterres […] naturalnews.com
ggreenwald
Posted - September 15, 2024 at 6:27 PM
Saved - September 16, 2024 at 12:24 PM

@ggreenwald - Glenn Greenwald

In case you think it's an exaggeration to say that the paramount priority of Western elites is to control the flow of speech and information on the internet, listen to the supremely German authoritarian EU President, Ursula @vonderleyen, say it explicitly and at length:

@Resist_CBDC - Resist CBDC

Ursula von der Leyen declares the biggest threats are mis-information and dis-information. Enter the Digital Services Act 👉 to allow censorship on behalf of The Regime's gated intuitional narrative. She’s trying to end Free Speech. https://t.co/gsXEF1wzUt

Video Transcript AI Summary
Disinformation and misinformation are the primary concerns of the Global Risk Report. The Digital Services Act defines the responsibilities of large internet platforms regarding the content they promote, especially concerning children, vulnerable groups, and hate speech. The boundary between online and offline is blurring, necessitating the protection of offline values online. Generative AI is a significant opportunity if used responsibly, but the World Economic Forum Global Risk Report identifies artificial intelligence as one of the top potential risks for the next decade.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, dear Claus, let me go back to the number one concern of the global risk report, disinformation and misinformation. Tackling this has been our focus since the very beginning of my mandate. With our digital services act, we defined the responsibilities of large Internet platforms on the content they promote and propagate, a responsible to children and vulnerable groups targeted by hate speech, but also a responsibility to our societies as a whole. Because the boundary between online and offline is getting thinner and thinner. And the values we cherish offline should also be protected online. And this is even more important in this new era of generative AI. Now, the World Economic Forum Global Risk Report puts artificial intelligence as one of the top potential risks for the next decade. First of all, let's not forget that AI is also a very significant opportunity if used in a responsible way.
iluminatibot
Posted - September 28, 2024 at 6:51 AM
Saved - September 29, 2024 at 12:00 AM

@iluminatibot - illuminatibot

Reminder: Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says free speech is a weapon of war, and censorship is necessary to protect free speech. https://t.co/iM4g7RbyO7

Video Transcript AI Summary
This week, an initiative was launched with companies and nonprofits to improve research and understanding of how automated processes curate online experiences. This is important for understanding online mis- and disinformation, a challenge that leaders must address. While it's easy to dismiss disinformation, ignoring it poses a threat to valued norms. How can wars end if people believe their reasons are legal and noble? How can climate change be tackled if people don't believe it exists? How are human rights upheld when people are subject to hateful rhetoric? The goals of those who perpetuate disinformation are to cause chaos, reduce the ability to defend, disband communities, and collapse countries' collective strength. There is an opportunity to ensure these weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare. Despite facing many battles, there is cause for optimism because for every new weapon, there is a new tool to overcome it. We have the means; we just need the collective will.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This week, we launched an initiative alongside companies and nonprofits to help improve research and understanding of how a person's online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online, a challenge that we must, as leaders, address. Sadly, I think it's easy to dismiss this problem as one in the margins. I can certainly understand the desire to leave it to someone else. As leaders, we're rightly concerned that even the most light touch approaches to disinformation could be mis interpreted as being hostile to values of free speech that we value so highly. But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value. After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal, but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld when they are subject to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology? The weapons may be different, but the goals of those who perpetuate them is often the same, to cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves, to disband communities, to collapse the collective strength of countries who work together. But we have an opportunity here to ensure that these particular weapons of war do not become an established part part of warfare. In these times, I'm acutely aware of how easy it is to feel disheartened. We are facing many battles on many fronts, but there is cause for optimism because for every new weapon we face, there is a new tool to overcome it. For every attempt to push the world into chaos is a collective conviction to bring us back to order. We have the means. We just need the collective will.
shellenberger
Posted - October 15, 2024 at 3:55 AM
Saved - October 15, 2024 at 11:42 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm alarmed by the growing censorship efforts from influential figures and governments targeting the Internet. With Ireland's law resurfacing and Australia close to similar measures, it's crucial to stand up for free speech. Please subscribe to support this fight and access more information.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

It sounds shocking, but it's true: the world's richest and most powerful people, NGOs, & governments are conspiring to censor the entire Internet. Gates, Clinton, & Harris have all demanded it. Ireland's censorship law is back. Australia's on the brink. It's time to fight back. https://t.co/Vio61fZIV2

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims censorship and disinformation efforts are at another level, referencing a Department of Homeland Security initiative to destroy reputations, deplatform, and de-bank individuals. They assert global control of social media platforms is at risk from governments and the "deep state," jeopardizing free speech and democracy worldwide, specifically mentioning Australia, Brazil, Ireland, Scotland, Europe, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Britain, Canada, and the United States. They criticize Orwellian justifications like "countering disinformation" used to mask censorship, advocating for fighting misinformation with accurate information, not government-backed censorship. The speaker alleges Facebook was "captured" years ago and expresses concern over government-favored fact-checkers dictating censorship. They state there is a push for total control over platforms like X. The speaker also criticizes "media literacy" programs as brainwashing that replaces critical thinking with obedience and authoritarianism. They cite a military contractor handbook advocating information warfare tactics, including those used in the Arab Spring, now being deployed domestically. They suggest these efforts aim to program people before stories emerge, suppressing dissenting voices and undermining Western enlightenment values.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What we see these guys doing in terms of their censorship and disinformation efforts, it's at another level. We discovered an early censorship initiative that had been authorized or started. It wasn't completely clear by the Department of Homeland Security, and it was incredibly sophisticated. It was also incredibly brutal because it would talk about destroying people's reputations, destroying their characters, deplatforming them, de banking them. We have got to draw a line in the sand and say absolutely not. Parliament should not be passing legislation that give this level of control to such a small group of people. Given what's at stake, which in my view is not just our freedom of speech in any single country, but it's really global control of all social media platforms is at serious risk. It's at risk of being controlled by governments, by what you might call the deep state, by these military intelligence and security agencies, and that's it. If you lose free speech, you don't have democracy. You don't have any of the other freedoms. And it's one that we see happening all over the world, Ireland, Scotland, Europe, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Britain, Canada, the United States, and obviously, as you know, also in Australia, which is a country that we're extremely concerned about. And in all these places, we see a lot of disturbing similarities. I consider what's happening in Australia one of the most urgent cases in the world right up there with what's happening in Brazil. When we look at Australia, there's so much that's happening in your country that feels both alarming and familiar. I mean, the first thing is, of course, they don't call it censorship, So they invent these Orwellian justifications, counter disinformation, counter misinformation. Who could possibly defend hate speech? Who could possibly defend misinformation to distract the attention from the censorship? You work at a think tank. I'm a journalist. I write books that have, you know, a quarter of which are footnotes. We're absolutely obsessed with facts and getting the information accurate. We spend our waking days fighting misinformation. But we don't advocate censorship. We fight misinformation with accurate information. It would never occur to us to try to go behind the scenes and get special powers from the government to censor the people that we disagree with or disallow them from expressing their views. Facebook was captured a couple years ago. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg came out recently complaining about the censorship, expressing some regret. This model of having government favored fact checkers decide what's true and false and then tell Facebook who to censor, that's been in place for years. And that's exactly what we saw in 1984 is what we've seen in totalitarian societies, whether Nazism or communism. They can't stand that they control and that they drive censorship on all these other platforms. They must have control of x. They want total control. And if you, like, what is the meaning of totalitarianism? It's the demand for and it's the creation of total state control over the society, over the culture, over the conversation. They also talk about media literacy, which is basically teaching kids in schools to accept as gospel whatever the mainstream corporate news media or in Australia, ABC, your state media, or the government sources say. So instead of critical thinking, which comes out out of the University of Chicago 100 years ago, it's John Dewey, which is this global movement to teach kids how to be critical thinkers, including asking hard questions of the government, that the government has an interest potentially in lying to the public. They want to replace that with something they call media literacy, which is basically teaching brainwashing and thought control and obedience and authoritarianism to students. They can't seem to let it go. They have to have control over X, and they have made clear that they will not rest, that it is a must have for them, not a nice to have. We discovered an early censorship initiative that had been authorized or started, it wasn't completely clear, by the Department of Homeland Security. And they had a little handbook they created for people to wage information warfare. And it clearly came from well, it did come from a military contractor. And so it felt as though it came out of really what the CIA had done in places like Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions. And it was incredibly sophisticated. It was also incredibly brutal because it would talk about destroying people's reputations, destroying their characters, deplatforming them, de banking them, which, of course, we then saw Justin Trudeau do with these trucker protests against COVID in Canada. And so you see these really hard line tactics that clearly had been used in rougher parts of the world, the Middle East, North Africa, Arab Spring, Eastern Europe, and seeing them turned against their own domestic populations, many moments I get chills up my spine, thinking about military intelligence, security officials, officers, agents, experts, whatever, you know, and some of these who are cognitive scientists. PsiOps is like an old fashioned thing. What these guys are doing is so next level. I mean, the Hunter Biden laptop story I told you about, they're trying to figure out how to program people before things become a story. If your instinct is not that, if your instinct is to silence those people, I would suggest that you have not evolved to where you need to be in the history of the Western enlightenment. We humans are, you know, we have a, an irrational animal side and a rational, you know, spiritual side, and they're often a tug of war. And it's that really base irrational side that just says, oh, I don't want to hear that, and that person must be silenced. There's a war between those 2 energies in in us, in our civilization.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Please subscribe now to support our defense of free speech, read the whole article, and watch the full video! https://t.co/FNHvFPjqBw

shellenberger
Posted - December 7, 2024 at 1:11 AM
Saved - December 7, 2024 at 3:55 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Global leaders advocate for Internet censorship to combat misinformation, but I believe free speech is the true solution. I've observed a troubling trend of rising censorship worldwide, with elites pushing for global regulations rather than local ones. Recent victories for free speech include legislative rejections of censorship in Ireland and Australia. During my recent trip to Brussels, I confronted the EU's censorship agenda, which threatens to impose restrictions globally. Despite the challenges, I remain optimistic that advocates for free speech will prevail against this growing censorship movement.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

We must censor the Internet to counter the spread of misinformation, say global leaders. But only free speech, not censorship, can counter misinformation. The real reason they want mass online censorship is so they won't keep getting called out for spreading disinformation. https://t.co/PMtg1iWZmI

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Over the last two years, we have been reporting on the alarming rise of censorship by governments around the world and speaking out against it. If you’re an American, you might not think this should bother you. But in every one of these nations, the people pushing for censorship made clear that they wanted to censor the entire Internet, not just in their own countries. The picture you get is of nations working together to make censorship global not local. Free speech advocates have won a number of important battles. In the last few months, Senators in Ireland and Australia rejected censorship legislation, while the executive branch of the European Union forced its top censor to step down after he warned Elon Musk not to speak to Donald Trump on X. We are more aware of the strategies that the Censorship Industrial Complex of politicians, government agencies, supposedly nongovernmental organizations, and the media use, around the world, to demand ever-more censorship by Internet and social media companies. But it’s also clear that elites worldwide view expanding censorship of online platforms as a must-have, not a nice-to-have feature of global governance. After a week back home in California after returning from Australia, I flew to Brussels, Belgium, to speak to the European Parliament at the invitation of MEP Fernand Kartheiser. There, I learned that the entire European Censorship Industrial Complex remains in place, complete with its Star Chamber of “trusted flaggers,” which are the organizations and people chosen by the EU government to identify wrongthink and demand that Meta/Facebook/Instagram, TikTok, and Google censor it. As in Brazil, those Big Tech companies are going along with it because they must, as organizations serving the interests of shareholders, not free citizens. And the EU has also made clear that it intends to enforce its draconian agenda by confiscating other assets belonging to Musk and any other social media companies and their owners who do not comply with censorship orders. “For decades,” notes the Economist in an article this week about Elon Musk’s conflict with Europe over censorship, “the EU has had free rein to regulate businesses within its borders in ways that often went on to be adopted across the world, a phenomenon known as the ‘Brussels effect.’” I am confident that free-speech lovers will ultimately prevail. Our cause is both righteous and popular. Sixty-one percent of Republicans and 30% of Democrats oppose government censorship of online platforms. Simply pointing out that “Fighting misinformation and hate speech” is, in reality, “Government censorship” has proven effective everywhere, as it breaks the hypnotic trance imposed by censorship advocates. And advocating for censorship has proven bad for the careers of everyone from Ireland’s justice minister to the top Censorship Industrial Complex operative working from the Stanford Internet Observatory, which terminated its censorship project earlier this year. There are good reasons for optimism. We are doing our part. In Brussels, I delivered a message, “Back off!” to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, and its President, Ursula von der Leyen. But it’s not enough. The whole bureaucracy remains in place, including the provision within the EU’s Orwellian “Digital Services Act” to demand censorship worldwide, not just in the EU. And so it’s increasingly clear to me that defunding, demoralizing, and ultimately ending the Censorship Industrial Complex will require a significant amount more time and effort, as our opponents are not giving up. Top Democrats, media personalities, and progressive philanthropists made that clear both before and after the November elections. The Brazilian government forced Musk to ban hundreds of individuals from the platform or face total confiscation of Starlink assets and the destruction of all Musk businesses in the eighth-largest economy in the world. Britain and Germany are both engaging in new demands for censorship, including the direct imprisonment of people for posting distasteful but nonetheless harmless content online. And massively expanding censorship remains one of the highest priorities if not the highest priority of the elites behind those governments. Davos’ World Economic Forum (WEF) earlier this year named misinformation as the number one global risk. The United Nations has made misinformation one of its top risks. And Bill Gates, the largest private funder to the World Health Organization, as well as the WHO itself, have both called for mass censorship by governments of online platforms, with Gates openly disparaging our First Amendment, similar to how Barack Obama did in 2022. Why is this happening? Why have they decided that this is a must-have rather than a nice-to-have?

Video Transcript AI Summary
Censorship is rising globally, with governments aiming to control the entire Internet, not just within their borders. Recent victories for free speech advocates include the rejection of censorship legislation in Ireland and Australia, and the resignation of a top EU censor. However, the EU's censorship framework remains intact, with organizations designated to identify and demand censorship from major tech companies. Despite these challenges, public opposition to government censorship is significant, with many recognizing it as a threat to free speech. Efforts to combat this censorship complex will require ongoing dedication, as influential figures continue to push for stricter controls. The focus on misinformation as a global risk by organizations like the World Economic Forum and the UN highlights the urgency of this issue.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, everybody. It's Mike Schellenberger for Public. Over the last 2 years, we have been reporting on the alarming rise of censorship by governments around the world, and we've been speaking out against it. Now if you're an American, you might not think that any of this should affect you or bother you, But in every one of those countries, the people pushing the censorship have made clear that they want to censor the entire Internet, not just in their own countries. The picture you get is of nations working together to make censorship global, not local. Now free speech advocates have won a number of important battles. In the last few months, senators in Ireland and Australia rejected censorship legislation, while the executive branch of the European Union forced its top censor to step down after he warned Elon Musk not to speak to Donald Trump on x. Now we are more aware of the strategies that the censorship industrial complex of politicians, government agencies, supposedly non governmental organizations, and the media all use around the world to demand ever more censorship by Internet and social media companies. But it's also clear that elites worldwide view expanding censorship of online platforms as a must have, not a nice to have feature of global governance. After a week back home in California after returning from Australia, I flew to Brussels, Belgium to speak to the European Parliament. There, I learned that the entire European censorship industrial complex remains in place complete with its star chamber of trusted flaggers, which are the organizations and people chosen by the EU government to identify wrong think and demand that meta Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Google all censor it. As in Brazil, those big tech companies are going along with it because they must as organizations serving the interests of shareholders, not free citizens. And the EU has also made it clear that it intends to enforce its draconian agenda by confiscating other assets belonging to Musk and any other social media companies and their owners who do not comply with their censorship orders. For decades, notes The Economist in an article this week about Elon Musk's conflict with Europe over censorship, the EU has had free reign to regulate businesses within its borders in ways that often went on to be adopted across the world, a phenomenon known as the Brussels effect. Now I am confident that free speech lovers will ultimately prevail. Our cause is both righteous and popular. 61% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats oppose government censorship of online platforms. Simply pointing out that fighting misinformation and hate speech is in reality government censorship has proven effective everywhere as it breaks the hypnotic trance imposed by censorship advocates. And advocating for censorship has proven bad for the careers of everyone from Ireland's justice minister to the top censorship industrial complex operative working from the Stanford Internet Observatory, which terminated its censorship project earlier this year. There are good reasons for optimism. We are doing our part. In Brussels, I delivered a message to the European Commission, which is the EU's executive branch and its president, Ursula von der Leyen. I came here to say something very simple about free speech and the relationship between the DSA and the United States of America, and this is in particular directed at Ursula von der Leyen. And my message is in 2 words, back off. Back off your attacks on freedom of speech, back off your attacks on the extraterritorial ambitions of the DSA, which are written right there in the statute, but it's not enough. The whole bureaucracy remains in place, including the provision within the EU's Orwellian Digital Services Act to demand censorship worldwide, not just in the EU. And so it's increasingly clear to me that defunding, demoralizing, and ultimately ending the censorship industrial complex will require a significant amount more time and effort as our opponents are not giving up. Top Democrats, media personalities, progressive philanthropists have all made clear both before and after the November elections that they will continue to push for censorship. The Brazilian government forced Musk to ban 100 of individuals from the platform or face total confiscation of Starlink assets and the destruction of all of Musk's businesses in the 8th largest economy in the world. Britain and Germany are both engaging in new demands for censorship, including the direct imprisonment of people for posting distasteful, but nonetheless harmless content online. And massively expanding censorship remains one of the highest priorities, if not the highest priority, of the elites behind those governments. Davos's World Economic Forum earlier this year named misinformation as the number one global risk. The United Nations has made misinformation one of its top risks. And Bill Gates, the largest private funder to the World Health Organization, as well as the WHO itself have both called for mass censorship by governments of online platforms, with Gates openly disparaging the first amendment similar to how Barack Obama did in 2022. So why is this happening? Why have they decided that this is a must have rather than a nice to have?

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Please subscribe now to support our defense of freedom of speech, to read the rest of the article, and watch the full video! https://t.co/mE5Gh9MOrK

shellenberger
Posted - January 9, 2025 at 2:30 PM
Saved - January 10, 2025 at 2:36 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The EU government is deploying 150 officials to monitor a livestream featuring Elon Musk and Alice Weidel, aiming to establish a framework for fining and censoring X. I believe that leaders like Ursula von der Leyen and Henna Virkkunen should reconsider their approach. President Macron needs to control his aggressive stance. While global leaders advocate for internet censorship to combat misinformation, I argue that free speech is the true solution, as the push for censorship seems to stem from a desire to avoid accountability for spreading disinformation.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The EU government will have 150 thought police listening to @elonmusk livestream with @Alice_Weidel today in order to lay the groundwork for fining and censoring X. https://t.co/QxevcNbDyb

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The EU’s @vonderleyen and @HennaVirkkunen need to back off President @EmmanuelMacron please reign in your attack dogs

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

We must censor the Internet to counter the spread of misinformation, say global leaders. But only free speech, not censorship, can counter misinformation. The real reason they want mass online censorship is so they won't keep getting called out for spreading disinformation. https://t.co/PMtg1iWZmI

shellenberger
Posted - March 3, 2025 at 2:21 PM
Saved - March 4, 2025 at 8:50 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The US government has shifted its stance from supporting censorship to championing free speech, as emphasized by Secretary Rubio's commitment to defending Americans' rights. I highlighted the troubling censorship efforts in Brazil, where I faced a criminal investigation for sharing accurate information. I also praised VP JD Vance for opposing the EU's censorship initiatives. As I prepare to protest against censorship in São Paulo, I believe that the true threat to freedom lies in our fear of totalitarians, not in the totalitarians themselves.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The US government didn’t censor anyone, said the media. But it did. Not only that, it worked with other nations to do so. Now, the US government has not only repudiated censorship, it’s put free speech at the center of its foreign policy. Thank you and bravo @SecRubio !

@UnderSecPD - Senior Official for Public Diplomacy

“We must stop censorship and suppression of information. The State Department’s efforts to combat malign propaganda have expanded and fundamentally changed since the Cold War era and we must reprioritize truth. The State Department I lead will support and defend Americans’ rights to free speech, terminating any programs that in any way lead to censoring the American people.  While we will combat genuine enemy propaganda, we will do so only with the fundamental truth that America is a great and just country whose people are generous and whose leaders now prioritize Americans’ core interests while respecting the rights and interests of other nations.”- Secretary Rubio. Watch to learn more.

Video Transcript AI Summary
I think the most important job we all have is at home, making sure our foreign policy supports the United States' interests. My sincere hope is that we can leave future generations a safer and better country and planet than what we inherited.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I believe the most important job any of us will ever have is the job we do at home to ensure that we have a foreign policy that advances the national interest of The United States. My sincerest hope and my prayer is that we will as a nation be able to leave the future generations with a country and planet safer and better than the one that was left for us.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The Brazilian government launched a criminal investigation of me for publishing the legal and accurate Twitter Files - Brazil. The US encouraged and financed censorship in Brazil. But now, the US is pushing free speech rather than censorship.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

The FBI, George Soros, and Brazil's government say they defend free speech and democracy. But a new, months-long investigation finds that they have been secretly working together to oversee a mass censorship effort that is in direct violation of the US & Brazilian Constitutions. https://t.co/jET5tYxwRg

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

VP @JDVance deserves enormous credit for denouncing the EU’s totalitarian censorship monster known as the “Digital Services Act.” Europe wants to censor the entire world. Until now, it had the support of the US government.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

JD Vance is right: the greatest threat to free speech and democracy in the Western world comes from Europe. This week, I warned of the global axis of censorship, and why America must stand up for our founding values. It is inspiring to see the Trump admin. center free speech! https://t.co/ry9JjXCA3C

Video Transcript AI Summary
The censorship industrial complex persists in Europe, Australia, Britain, and Brazil, pushing for digital identification linked to social media. I faced a criminal investigation in Brazil after publishing the Twitter files. The European Commission is using the Digital Services Act to pressure platforms like X and Facebook to censor speech, threatening massive fines for non-compliance. Despite some victories for free speech, global elites see online censorship as crucial for global governance. NATO, the European Commission, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, the UN, WHO, WEF, and various US agencies have all advocated for censorship. US deep state agencies have been manipulating global news for two decades, using counterterrorism tactics against Americans post-2016. I urge Congress to defund the censorship industrial complex and investigate its funding, including through shell organizations. Congress should also protect American social media users from censorship demands by Europe, Britain, and Brazil.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The censorship industrial complex remains almost entirely intact in in Europe, Australia, Britain, Brazil, and other nations in the West continue to seek new forms of censorship and information control, including digital identification tied to social media. And after I published the Twitter files Brazil Last Spring, the attorney general of Brazil opened a formal criminal investigation of me, which is still ongoing. And the European Commission appears intent upon using its powers granted to it through the Digital Services Act to demand that x Facebook and other platforms censor speech. The commission last year threatened to find axe up to 6% of its annual global revenue for failing to crack down on so called false information and not giving handing over its data to small committees of experts chosen by the commission to decide what is true and false. To be sure, the momentum is with us, the free speech advocates. We've won a number of important battles over the last two years. But it's also clear that many governing and media elites worldwide view expanding censorship of online platforms as a must have, not a nice to have feature of global governance. The head of NATO, NATO backed think tanks, the European Commission, former president Barack Obama, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, influential think tanks at Harvard and Stanford, elements of the DOD, the CIA, the FBI, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Homeland Security, and many others have all called for government censorship of so called misinformation in recent years. And it's not just censorship that's the problem. The problem is that deep state agencies within the US government have for two decades sought to gain control over the production of news and other information around the world as part of ongoing covert and overt influence operations. And that after 2016, multiple actors and several deep state US Government agencies turned to the tools of counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterpopulism against the American people. I strongly urge congress to defund the censorship industrial complex and seek a proper accounting of the various efforts to fund it, including secretly through pass through organizations and shell organizations like the ones employed by USAID to fund groups like OCCCRP and hide US government funding and control. I further urge congress to seek other ways to reduce the exposure of American social media users and companies to the threat of censorship from Europe, Britain, Brazil, and other nations. We should respect national sovereignty, but vice president Vance makes a good point when he asks why Americans should be spending our wealth and putting our lives on the line for Western European NATO members who are actively demanding censorship by American companies of our speech. Thank you very much.

@greg_price11 - Greg Price

JD Vance went to the Munich Security Conference and roasted the entire continent of Europe for being petty tyrants and criminalizing freedom of speech, including a British man arrested for praying at an abortion clinic. https://t.co/o51VoWZ6Mr

Video Transcript AI Summary
Looking at Europe today, it's concerning to see potential reversals of Cold War victories. The EU threatens to shut down social media for "hateful content," while in another country, police raid citizens for anti-feminist comments online. In Sweden, a Christian activist was convicted for participating in Quran burnings after his friend's murder, with the judge noting free expression doesn't grant a "free pass" to offend any group. Most worryingly, in the UK, conscience rights are eroding. Army veteran Adam Smith Connor was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic. Found guilty, he was fined thousands. Recently, the Scottish government warned citizens that even private prayer at home could break the law, urging them to report suspected "thought crimes". I fear that free speech is in retreat across Britain and Europe.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War's winners. I look to Brussels where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they've judged to be quote hateful content. Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti feminist comments online as part of, quote, combating misogyny on the Internet, a day of action. I look to Sweden where two weeks ago the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Quran burnings that resulted in his friend's murder. And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden's laws to supposedly protect free expression do not in fact grant, and I'm quoting, a free pass to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief. And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, The United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs. A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51 year old physiotherapist and an army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now the officers were not moved. Adam was found guilty of breaking the government's new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution. Now I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no, this last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime. In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

@JDVance I have fought alongside very brave Brazilian people for free speech. Now, finally, the US government has switched from supporting censorship to supporting free speech.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

Tomorrow, I fly to São Paulo to join other lovers of free speech to protest censorship, including the X ban. There's a chance I'll be arrested. It's worth the risk. The greatest threat to our freedom doesn't come from totalitarians. It comes from our fear of them. https://t.co/mJoHsUUD8C

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

@JDVance Censorship is never the solution to wrong information and hatred. Only free speech is.

@shellenberger - Michael Shellenberger

We must censor the Internet to counter the spread of misinformation, say global leaders. But only free speech, not censorship, can counter misinformation. The real reason they want mass online censorship is so they won't keep getting called out for spreading disinformation. https://t.co/PMtg1iWZmI

elonmusk
Posted - June 3, 2025 at 2:55 PM
Saved - June 4, 2025 at 3:56 AM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Defund the UN

@Grummz - Grummz

They just declared war on free speech. UN Secretary-General António Guterres is talking about X and other platforms. https://t.co/DNTdR90Vkv

Video Transcript AI Summary
Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. A policy brief on information integrity on digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. Our policy brief on information integrity on digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.
ALEXNEWMAN_JOU
Posted - July 1, 2025 at 6:39 PM
Saved - July 2, 2025 at 5:00 PM

@ALEXNEWMAN_JOU - Alex Newman

The @UN Internet Governance Forum just ended in Norway, and they are committed to controlling the web to combat "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation." Ultimately, they want to control your speech. @RMistereggen joined The Sentinel Report to explain. https://t.co/r3SITxJ6vg

Video Transcript AI Summary
The UN aims to control the Internet under the guise of fighting misinformation, even citing conspiracy theories like "Michelle Obama is a lizard," according to a UNESCO report. The Internet Governance Forum in Norway revealed plans to govern the Internet based on UN human rights principles, not First Amendment rights. The goal is to connect everyone to the internet for data collection and manipulation. A larger World Summit on the Information of Society is planned, building on the Norway forum. Tech giants like TikTok and Meta are collaborating to ensure internet safety and combat AI misinformation. Concerns arise as Western democracies, like Norway, advocate for digital freedom while implementing the EU's Digital Service Act, which controls information and defines misinformation. An Iraqi Christian refugee in Sweden, Salma Mumika, who criticized Islam by burning the Quran, was murdered live on TikTok after being denied asylum in Norway and facing deportation from Sweden. Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement due to Iran's infiltration of Swedish criminal networks, the case remains unresolved, with little media coverage.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome back to the Sentinel Report. Folks, if you've been following our show for a while or if you've been following my writings in all kinds of different publications around the world, you know that the UN wants to control the Internet. I mean, they really, really, really, really badly wanna control the Internet. Of course, they claim they're fighting misinformation and disinformation and malinformation, which, by the way, they admit is true. Also, conspiracy theories like Michelle Obama is a lizard. That's actually what they said in a UNESCO report calling for global censorship of the Internet. The globalist UN Internet controllers or would be Internet controllers just got done meeting in Norway at a big summit there, and surprise, they don't want you to be able to speak your mind online. They don't want you to be able to use the Internet without their control and supervision. In fact, it was called the Internet Governance Forum because they plan to govern the Internet, not based on First Amendment principles like we have in The United States, but rather based on UN human rights principles, which are quite the opposite of human rights. Joining us now to discuss is a fantastic Norwegian journalist. She's doing in fact, I I would argue one of the best Norwegian journalists, if know anything about Scandinavian media. It's mostly government propaganda masquerading as news, and I say that as somebody who spent many years living in Scandinavia, married to a Scandinavian. But Rebecca Mr. Egan, she's a Norwegian journalist with Documents Media, an independent media outlet known for offering a critical perspective on politics, culture, and society. She does a lot of really great work. Rebecca, welcome to the program. Thank you for joining us. Speaker 1: Thank you for having me. I'm very, very happy to be here. Speaker 0: Great to have you. Talk to us about this Internet Governance Forum. Globalists from around the world descended on Norway. I know they already made sure that nobody could criticize Saudi Arabia. I wonder why. What was the big takeaway? Speaker 1: So it was two two sides to this forum, I guess you could say, that lasted over five days. Actually, just a stone throw away from where I live. It was governance of the Internet as you so perfectly introduced it as, and then versus everybody wanting or not wanting, everybody needing access to the Internet. So it's on the one hand, it's all about the who's gonna control it, how are we gonna govern the Internet moving forward, what they call the Internet of the future. And then on the other hand, it's about the openness of the Internet, how everybody because, apparently, half of the world don't have access. How can we give them access? So I take away that as, you know, planning for the rest of the world to to get online and how they then will govern everybody using the Internet. And I know that sounds like a big conspiracy, but is it really Alex? Speaker 0: No. I I think you're exactly right, Rebecca. And I've I've been studying these would be Internet controllers for a long time, and you're right. They they want everybody connected twenty four seven so they can spy on you, gather up all your data, and manipulate you. And if, know, now we got Internet of things. Next will be Internet of bodies. Rebecca, you mentioned that this was a preparation for an even bigger and more significant summit. What should we expect from the UN and the would be Internet controllers if Western governments, maybe Donald Trump in particular, don't put their foot down and say this is not happening? Speaker 1: So there's a there's a summit coming up, World Summit on the Information of Society, which is scheduled later this year as far as I'm concerned. And, this forum that happened in Lillestem was a sort of the foundation. They didn't come up with any, agreements or anything like that, but they've talked out between, I think, 4,000 delegates from more than a 150 countries, including ministers from from Norway and other countries, UN officials, minister tech giants TikTok was there, Meta was there, are you surprised? I'm not. Talking about how they can, you know, work together in making sure the Internet is a safe place and that AI is not used for misinformation. And I think it's very ironic because they were talking about countries like Iran and China wanting total sovereignty over the Internet and their networks, and they have closed down the Internet. I think Iran was the last one out during this war with Israel closing out their citizens' access to the Internet. Right? So they were talking about that part and on how to control the Internet and how that's a bad thing because, you know, it's Iran controlling their people, not the global governance controlling the Iranian people. But then you have Western democracies like Norway saying, if we don't protect digital freedom now, we will lose it for good. Yet here we are waiting with enthusiasm, Alex, to implement the digital service act from the European Union, is all about controlling information, deciding what is misinformation, what is disinformation, what you're allowed to say, think, and feel. So excuse me if I don't think that this foundation for a later UN meeting is such a great idea. Speaker 0: Yeah. No kidding. They're they're always up to no good, these people. You cannot let your eye off of them for a second. Rebecca, there's so much more to say about this Internet issue, but there's so many other topics I want to discuss with you. But I I do think what you just said about where they're going with this is really important for people to understand. The UN actually, the the undersecretary general for communication, Melissa Fleming, announced in 2022 that they've got a partnership with Google to control what you can see on issues like climate change. I mean, these are really important things, and nobody is talking about them. So very happy to have you reporting on that. We did talk a little bit about Bilderberg, you and I, just a few months ago. I know they just met in Scandinavia, so I wanna hit on that before we finish today. But first, another huge story. There was an Iraqi man, raised as a Christian in Iraq, fled to Sweden to get away from the head chopping jihadist. And he was famous in Sweden for burning the Quran, the Islamic holy book. And he was actually murdered live on Tik As you know, this was earlier this year, February. And I found out from you that he had actually he was scheduled to be deported by the Swedes. If you're a jihadist, fine. If you're a transgender, fine. If you're a Christian, back to the head choppers for you. So he tried to get asylum in Norway and was rejected. Talk to us about this case that unfortunately Americans haven't even hardly heard of. Speaker 1: So it is an interesting case because I I I would assume that most of your viewers are familiar with the two tie two tier policing that has been going around in The UK for years and years regarding the so called grooming gangs, which we in Europe call the jihad rapist gangs. Right? So, with that said, two tier policing and the two tier justice system and also two tier asylum system is very much present in Scandinavia as well, and we see this in the example of Salma Mumika. He came to Sweden. He's he's, as you said, raised a Christian. He was a big Islamic well, critic of Islam, and he made it his mission to show that freedom of speech is necessary to keep these totalitarian Islamic ideas away. And burning the Quran is a very efficient way to do that because it kinda lures out all the angry Sharia people. I call them Sharia people because they they threatened to murder you. They come for you. I've been at one of these protests, not with Salvan, but I have been with Stop Islamization of Norway to to just to observe how this goes about. And I can tell you it's terrifying. Absolutely terrifying just for speaking your mind about what the Sharia law or Quran says. A lot of these Muslim people that we have in Norway, in Sweden, and and elsewhere in Europe, they are willing to kill you for saying what you're saying. And that is not compatible with Western culture as as as you know. But the thing about Solon was he was due to be deported from Sweden. He's he came to Norway to seek asylum here. He was rejected, had to go back to Sweden. He had his asylum application prolonged, I think, for one year. He was due to go back this year to Iraq. And the day after he was murdered, I'm sorry, I didn't murder is not the right word, he was executed. Mhmm. He was shot in the head at a secret location in Sweden. So he was very much executed. That that is the the thing about this case. And the day before, he was due in court for hold on to your hair hate speech. So I've been following this case since it happened. I've been in touch with Oman Rasmus, which is the well, due to be prosecutor in this case. I've been in touch with him twice. He has nothing to report. Absolutely nothing. It's silent in terms of news, updates, suspects, anything that regarding this case. And my impression, also reading Swedish media, is that nobody wants to touch it. And they had earlier this year expressed, and they they said that the security service, SAPO, they were involved in the investigation of this his execution and that they thought that there were foreign countries involved. Speaker 0: Wow. Speaker 1: And the suspicion has been pointing to Iran because of because of I think it was Mossad's. Mossad was pointing out the Swedish criminal networks, Ramba and Foxtrot. They have Iran has been accused of trying to force these criminal clans to do terrorism in Sweden, in which they did with the setting off grenades outside of the Swedish I'm sorry, the Israeli embassy in Sweden and also in Denmark not too far not too too long after. And so already in 2024, Iran was accused of of infiltrating these criminal clans and networks that are operating in Sweden. And so Sullivan burning the Quran outside of the Turkish embassy, outside of the embassies, just like Rasmus Polodon did, the the Danish Swedish citizen that comes over from Denmark. They they try to bar him out, but they they can't. That set off a number of waves throughout the geopolitics regarding NATO, regarding other things. And so and we also know that Iran has a tendency to put out fatwas. They did that with as with Rushdie that was stabbed on stage. When was that? Two years ago? Is that two years ago? Speaker 0: A few years ago, at least. Yeah. Three Speaker 1: years ago. Ago. Mhmm. So, you know, it's the fact that Iran already is heavily involved in the criminal networks in Sweden makes it more likely that if there is such a thing as foreign involvement in his execution, that it points to Iran. But we hear nothing. It's crickets. Speaker 0: Yeah. Probably a lot of the journalists are scared to even talk about it because they might be next on the list. Yeah. It's crazy. And and we know that the Swedish government is looking now at the Islamist infiltration of its own law enforcement bodies, and so my guess is they're gonna have to look away to not find too much. But, Rebecca, we're just about out of time. How do people follow your excellent work? I know document.n0 is where people can go there. It's lot of stuff in Norwegian, but you also do some stuff in English. I was just on with you recently to talk about Bilderberg. How do people follow your work? Speaker 1: So you can go to my YouTube channel and also my x account is r mister Regin, my first letter of my first name, and then mister Regan, my last name. You'll it's the same handle at YouTube and x, and you will find our interview on my channel YouTube channel. You will find a lot of the work that I've done for well, not a lot. You'll find some of the work I've done for Document and some other shows. I do conservative psychiatry with my friend Hannah Spear. She's a psychiatrist from Switzerland, and we talk about both culture and religion, actually, and how crazy society is today and how we can correct it, basically. So there's that, and you can find the my interview with you. You can find other interviews and also you find document media on rumble. You can find a lot of the actual deeper work that I've done in terms of covid and and all of it that stuff that you can't put up on YouTube, but elsewhere because you get what censored. Right? So Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, that's fantastic. Rebecca, thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for the great work you're doing. I hope you will come back again soon to give us more updates on what's going on across the pond. But thank you for all you're doing, and God bless you. Speaker 1: Thank you. God bless you.
newstart_2024
Posted - August 3, 2025 at 7:58 AM
Saved - August 3, 2025 at 10:43 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The UN Secretary-General has declared platforms like 𝕏 a significant threat to global discourse, demanding strict control over information through a new "Code of Conduct for Information Integrity." This initiative calls for governments to enforce censorship, adopt EU-style speech laws, and comply with a UN-run observatory. The aim is to combat "disinformation," but it appears to target dissenting opinions and unwanted narratives. This move signifies a push for global censorship without democratic consent, and I believe it's crucial to resist this trend to protect free speech.

@newstart_2024 - Camus

UN declares war on digital freedom 🟡UN Secretary-General António Guterres has just labeled platforms like 𝕏 a “clear and present danger” to the global agenda — and now he’s demanding total control over what you’re allowed to see, say, and share. 😀 The UN’s new “Code of Conduct for Information Integrity” calls on governments to: 🔹 Enforce censorship 🔹 Follow EU-style speech laws 🔹 Submit to a UN-run “independent observatory” to monitor compliance Let that sink in: ❌ An unelected global body wants to decide what’s “truth” ❌ Your own country is expected to enforce it ❌ Platforms like X, Telegram, and Rumble are now targets 🟡They claim it’s about stopping “disinformation.” But we know what that really means: 💥 Opinions they don’t like 💥 Stories they want buried 💥 Speech they can’t control ➡️THIS is the globalist censorship regime in the open. No vote. No consent. Just compliance. If we don’t push back now — the truth will be outlawed.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. A policy brief on information integrity on digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. Our policy brief on information integrity on digital digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.
JimFergusonUK
Posted - October 5, 2023 at 7:05 AM
Saved - October 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern promoted the vaccine aggressively, but evidence suggests she and her government exempted themselves from taking the mRNA shot. Ardern, a disciple of the World Economic Forum's agenda, is seen as a dangerous cultist. Is the World Economic Forum a cult? (Sources: [link1], [link2])

@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson

#JacindaArdern former Prime Minister of #NewZealand pushed the vax like a cheap city block drug pusher while telling everyone that the Government was the only true source of information. However evidence has emerged that she and her Government decided they were exempt from taking the #mRNA shot!!! #GlobalParasite and #WEF2030Agenda disciple and cult member Ardern is a dangerous and weird cultist. Is the World Economic Forum a Cult? See report here https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1709159686325367167?s=20… Read here https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/new-zealand-govt-exempted-elite-from-deadly-covid-jabs-while-forcing-vax-on-public/

View Full Interactive Feed