TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The most alarming thing was the organized communication between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and tech companies, involving flagging content in large numbers. Four federal judges have ruled that this violates the First Amendment. Former FBI officials within Twitter and other groups worked to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story, despite it not violating Twitter's terms of service. The FBI and CIA had their own internal groups within Twitter. The Aspen Institute held a workshop to discourage coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Content moderators at social media platforms have too much power in determining what Americans can say and see. This collusion between unelected bureaucrats and tech companies is inappropriate and a form of election interference. The censorship organizations tend to have a biased leaning.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The speaker highlights the deceptive tactics used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, funded by and working closely with the government. They actively flagged and pressured tech platforms to remove posts, using the threat of regulatory action and crisis PR. They also pushed for a terms of service policy called "delegitimization" that banned discussions about election integrity. The speaker exposes the collusion between these academics and the tech platforms, as well as the revolving door between government and academia. The censorship efforts targeted millions of posts and narratives, effectively silencing dissenting voices.

Former military contractors, including those currently employed, along with individuals from the navy, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security, were involved in censorship and the use of psychological operations and disinformation tactics against the American people. These tactics, developed by the US military and allies, were turned against the American people after Trump's election in 2016. Social media companies, with potential government support, engaged in mass censorship. The Hunter Biden laptop in October 2020 played a significant role in this story. FBI personnel were working at Twitter when it censored the New York Post story about the laptop, creating the perception of illegitimacy. The laptop was later confirmed to be real, debunking the conspiracy theory of Russian manipulation. US intelligence officials spread disinformation about the laptop, leading many to be deceived.

These individuals, referred to as government cutouts, are not traditional academics but rather work closely with the government. The head of the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) consortium, which includes Stanford University, UW, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council, openly admitted that EIP was created to fill the gaps in government capabilities. They were given a $3 million government grant to continue their censorship work for the 2022 midterms and 2024 election. All four entities in the EIP consortium receive funding from the federal government, and there is a revolving door between government and academia, with individuals moving between positions. This close relationship and funding from the government raise questions about their independence and objectivity.

The speaker discusses a coordinated disinformation campaign involving the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), The New York Times, and the Department of Homeland Security. The EIP provided a blog post to The New York Times, which then published a defamatory article. The EIP later cited the article in its own report. The Department of Homeland Security was revealed to be involved in the campaign. The speaker highlights the censorship and silencing of right-wing voices on social media platforms, as well as the impact on public access to information. Lawsuits were filed against The New York Times and EIP, but were dismissed. The speaker suggests that this campaign will be used in the 2024 election.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The speaker highlights the deceptive tactics used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, funded by and working closely with the government. They actively flagged and pressured tech platforms to remove posts, using the threat of regulatory action and crisis PR. The speaker exposes the manipulation and censorship tactics used by these government-backed entities, emphasizing the violation of free speech and the lack of transparency in their actions.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The speaker highlights the deceptive tactics used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, working closely with tech platforms to flag and remove posts. They were funded by the government and had revolving door relationships with government agencies. The speaker exposes how these academics actively pressured the tech platforms to adopt censorship policies and targeted millions of posts for removal. The video also reveals the manipulation of terms like "studied" and "misinformation narratives" to justify the censorship. This is just a summary of the extensive information covered in the video.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving never-Trump Republicans, DHS, NATO, and DNC planned a mass censorship campaign using Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council. These institutions, linked to the Pentagon, aimed to control social media to prevent questioning of mail-in ballots' legitimacy. The campaign involved threats to tech companies, resulting in a new censorship policy called delegitimization. This pre-censorship effort targeted 22 million pro-Trump posts on 15 platforms to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory. The goal was to avoid election crisis due to mail-in ballot discrepancies.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving DHS, NATO, and DNC planned a mass censorship campaign on social media with 4 Pentagon-linked institutions. They aimed to prevent questioning of mail-in ballot legitimacy. The group coerced tech companies to censor content through threats and pressure, resulting in millions of posts being banned or limited. The campaign was set up months before the election to avoid a crisis if the election results were disputed. The group's actions were based on the belief that a Biden victory would rely on mail-in ballots.

On January 7, 2017, the head of the Department of Homeland Security declared the electoral infrastructure of the United States as critical infrastructure, giving the federal government control over it. This move faced resistance from local electoral officials. Later, under the pretext of foreign disinformation, a small group of political officials gained unilateral power over the entire US political system. They seized control of the electoral system and social media platforms, using intelligence agencies to monitor and censor content. With the arrival of COVID, these measures were applied to combat what was called the "infodemic" of COVID disinformation. Government-led efforts to censor COVID disinformation were supported by companies like Facebook, who claimed to have censored millions of posts related to COVID disinformation.

37 hours after President Biden's inauguration, the White House opened a portal for the FBI to access social media posts, later including the CIA, DHS, IRS, and SAISA. SAISA is allegedly responsible for censoring information the government doesn't want Americans to hear. These agencies, including the CDC, could alter posts, slow walk content, and shadow ban users. The speaker claims their Instagram account with almost 1,000,000 followers was removed for "misinformation," despite no factually incorrect posts. Facebook reportedly pushed back, acknowledging the information was true, leading to the invention of the term "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government—which was then categorized alongside disinformation and misinformation. Emails allegedly show Facebook employees privately criticizing the White House, recognizing their actions as illegal but driven by immense pressure. Facebook and other media companies have deals with government and intelligence agencies, and the White House threatened their Section 230 immunity if they didn't comply.

The speaker discusses how the US Department of Defense censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle. They explain that a group within the Atlantic Council and the foreign policy establishment pushed for a permanent domestic censorship government office to counter misinformation and disinformation. This office was eventually established within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through an obscure cybersecurity agency called CISA. The speaker details how this agency, with the combined powers of the CIA and FBI, classified online misinformation as a cybersecurity attack on democracy. They further explain how Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council, all Pentagon-associated institutions, were involved in a coordinated mass censorship campaign to pre-censor any disputes about the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. This campaign involved pressuring tech companies to adopt new terms of service speech violation bans. The speaker suggests that this censorship operation was orchestrated to ensure the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a red mirage blue shift event. They also mention the connection between this operation and the impeachment of Trump in late 2019.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving DHS, NATO, and the DNC planned a mass censorship campaign on social media to prevent disputing mail-in ballot legitimacy. They partnered with Stanford, University of Washington, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council, all linked to the Pentagon. Using threats and pressure, they forced tech companies to ban content questioning mail-in ballots. This was done to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory due to mail-in ballots. The group aimed to control the narrative and prevent election crisis.

Leading up to the 2020 election, Twitter had regular meetings with various government agencies, including the FBI, DOJ, DHS, and DNI, to engage in unconstitutional censorship. The FBI paid Twitter over $3.4 million to censor stories like the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. There was a corrupt relationship between the FBI and Twitter, with former FBI officials joining Twitter and creating their own communication channels. Polls show that if people had known about the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53% would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats. This is election meddling and collusion by the FBI, funded by taxpayers. The FBI's politicization extends beyond Twitter, as seen in their targeting of parents at school board meetings, which was prompted by the White House and the secretary of education. This corruption must be addressed to protect the American people from government weaponization.

The Aspen Institute held a workshop attended by major media and social media platforms to discourage coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story. This was concerning as there was no evidence of the laptop's existence, yet efforts were made to influence media coverage. Content moderators on platforms like Twitter have significant power in determining what Americans can say and see. It is inappropriate for unelected bureaucrats or tech companies to collude in influencing speech and information. The government and big tech should not decide who can speak on social media platforms; it should be decided by the people. This censorship can be seen as a form of election interference, as seen in the CTI League case where individuals displayed strong partisan bias.

This hearing examines the Department of Homeland Security's role in censoring American voices through supposedly independent organizations. While protecting election infrastructure from foreign disinformation was the initial goal, it expanded to include countering domestic misinformation. The government created NGOs, like the Election Integrity Project, to do what it couldn't do directly. CISA acted as a switchboard to flag and notify social media platforms of misinformation, resulting in millions of tweets categorized as such. The same tools were used to censor COVID-19 narratives, some of which were later proven true. Concerns arise about DHS overreaching its jurisdiction and expanding censorship to various topics. The hearing questions the failure of leadership within DHS and the potential threat to civil liberties.

The Twitter files reveal that the federal government, including intelligence agencies like the FBI, used Twitter to censor Americans' speech. Twitter was closely connected to the FBI before Elon Musk took over. Documents show that Twitter engaged in information sharing with the intelligence community, and multiple agencies were involved. The FBI pressured Twitter to act on election-related tweets in 2020 and 2022, resulting in content censorship. Twitter executives restricted accounts, censored speech conflicting with the official narrative, and used internal tools to control and manipulate information. This should concern every member of Congress and American citizen, as it goes against the principle of free speech. Government and media fact checkers often make mistakes, so important debates should not be suppressed.

37 hours after President Biden's inauguration, the White House opened a portal for the FBI to access social media posts. The FBI then invited the CIA, DHS, IRS, and SAISA, which is allegedly in charge of censoring information the government doesn't want Americans to hear. These agencies, including the CDC, were given access to social media sites to change posts, slow walk content, and shadow ban posts. The speaker's Instagram account, with almost 1,000,000 followers, was removed for alleged misinformation, but the speaker claims that they never posted anything factually erroneous. The speaker claims that Facebook pushed back, stating that the posts were not misinformation. The White House then allegedly invented the term "malinformation," defined as factually true information inconvenient for the government. Facebook employees allegedly privately described the White House as cynical and terrible, believing their actions were illegal but were under pressure due to deals with the government and threats to Section 230 immunity.

The Twitter files reveal that the federal government, including intelligence agencies like the FBI, used Twitter to censor Americans' speech. Twitter was heavily influenced by the FBI before Elon Musk took over. Documents show that Twitter engaged in information sharing with the intelligence community, and multiple agencies were involved. The FBI pressured Twitter to act on election-related tweets in 2022 and 2020, resulting in content censorship. Twitter executives restricted accounts, censored speech conflicting with the desired narrative, and used internal tools to control and manipulate information. This should concern every member of Congress and American citizen, as it goes against the constitutional principle of free speech. Government and media fact checkers often make mistakes, so important debates should not be suppressed.

Cole notes that he purchased six galvanized pipes of this size on June 1, June 8, and November 16, and asks for receipts. The discussion shifts to what questions a point person in 2021 would face and to a theory of the case, with speculation about how individuals could be drawn into a plan to influence events, including the possibility of a “pipe bomb” plot and manipulation of associates. Speaker 1 explains that, as a federal investigator, one would use a speculative investigative lens to broaden the search to cover various permutations of the case, including the idea that there was a so-called Red Mirage Blue Shift scenario surrounding the 2020 election. They reference CNN’s 2020 reporting on deciphering red mirage and blue shift uncertainty, including pre censorship by DHS/CISA in June 2020 to suppress any social media criticism of mass mail-in ballots, so as to prevent questions about legitimacy of an upcoming Biden victory. The discussion asserts that the goal was to preempt perceptions of illegitimacy and manage the narrative around the election results. The conversation then turns to Rosa Brooks, a high-ranking Obama administration official who headed the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and wrote about pathways to remove Trump from power. Speaker 1 cites Brooks’ article “Three ways to stop President Trump before the 2020 election” and notes an assertion, reportedly in a Diet of Lisa-like coverage, that she later discussed a fourth, insurrectionary possibility: a military coup. They claim TIP was a war game conducted in June 2020 and then in November 2020, involving senior military, intelligence, diplomatic, and political operatives, with participants from both parties including Michael Steele (former RNC head), Donna Brazile (former DNC head), John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), Bill Kristol, and others. The summary asserts that TIP’s appendix, “Will Trumpism survive a Trump loss?” warned that Trumpism could persist even after a loss, necessitating a robust strategy to eliminate Trump supporters and networks that enabled Trump’s rise. It is claimed the document discusses how to mobilize mass street protests, especially via Black Lives Matter and allied groups, to pressure a Biden administration to act against Trump, including funding and resource provisioning of protest movements to ensure their alignment with Democratic objectives. The dialogue alleges that, in June 2020, TIP proposed measures to de- legitimize Trump, including not letting Trump use the National Guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests. It is asserted that the plan contemplated mass demonstrations, the use of “street protests” as decisive leverage, and the establishment of communications infrastructure to support mass mobilization for street action if Trump won, or to counter him if he did not. The participants allegedly favored aligning with groups like Soros-funded Indivisible and Hold the Line, and urged resourcing new racial justice leaders and major philanthropic/foundation channels to fund these movements, including a claimed $50 billion in funding to Black Lives Matter. The transcript claims that TIP’s War Game included explicit scenarios about alternate electors, secession moves, and the potential for mass prosecutions of Trump and his associates, as well as strategic recommendations on how to proceed if Trump refused to concede. It is further asserted that a June 2020 war game considered provoking an “January 6” breakdown in Congress as a central move to prevent a contested inauguration, with participants pondering agent provocateurs and avenues to postpone certification. Throughout, the speakers connect the pipe-bomb purchases in June 2020 to the TIP war games and the broader plan to undermine Trump through street mobilization, legal maneuvers, and potential mass arrests of Trump supporters and networks, while noting the January 6 events as a focal point of these discussions.

Government officials allegedly coerced Facebook and Twitter to censor posts via threatening emails, according to the transcript. A Biden White House official, Rob Flaherty, purportedly sent explicit threats to Facebook demanding content removal. High-ranking government officials had a special portal to flag content to senior executives at Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, outsourcing censorship. Universities like Stanford and the University of Washington were allegedly used to flag "wrong think," which then led to government pressure on social media companies. The speaker asserts this network, like the "story of COVID," was about power and control, with entities exceeding their authority. The OSHA vaccine mandate is cited as an example of an agency overstepping its original purpose.

This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 elections and the COVID-19 pandemic. The speaker highlights deceptive framing devices used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, working closely with the Department of Homeland Security. They colluded with tech platforms to flag and remove posts, using tactics like delegitimization and pressuring companies through regulatory threats. The speaker exposes the close relationship between these academics and the government, as well as their revolving door positions. The censorship efforts targeted millions of posts and narratives, effectively silencing discussions on election integrity and COVID-19.

Before the 2020 election, a coordinated censorship campaign was launched. This involved the Department of Homeland Security, NATO, and the DNC, leveraging institutions like Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council—many with ties to the Pentagon. These groups, many staffed by former intelligence officials, worked together to suppress discussion questioning the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. They used a multi-step plan to pressure social media companies into adopting a new policy banning content undermining public confidence in the election process. This involved threats of government action and leveraging media allies. Millions of posts across multiple platforms were censored or suppressed. The goal was to prevent questions about the election outcome, anticipating a potential crisis if initial results appeared to favor Trump before shifting to Biden.

Stanford researcher Renee DiResta and journalist Matt Taibbi discuss the revelation that Congress has access to people's emails through subpoena power. They also confirm that the Election Infrastructure Partnership (EIP) was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operation from the beginning, as previously established. Twitter's Lisa Roman reveals that CISA received grants to build a web portal for reporting election-related misinformation. The committee report highlights gaps in legal authorities and coordination for addressing election misinformation. DiResta explains how DHS has taken on a role similar to a domestic CIA for information control. The federal government lacked preparedness and coordination in identifying and analyzing election misinformation, as the intelligence community and FBI have specific limitations.

The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), funded by the US government, has been using taxpayer dollars to secretly censor conservative and heterodox opinions online. They conducted a social science censorship experiment using 23 million tweets labeled as misinformation from the 2020 election. EIP developed four censorship techniques, resulting in a 63% censorship rate without users knowing they were being censored. These techniques included covert follower loss for medium to large-sized influencers. The study, published in Nature Magazine, aimed to find ways to censor people without causing outrage or blowback for tech platforms. EIP received $1 million in taxpayer funding from the Biden administration.