reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The media allegedly censored certain COVID-19 related theories, including the virus's origin from a lab leak, the ineffectiveness of masks, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Facebook banned the lab leak claim, but the FBI and Department of Energy later suggested a lab incident in Wuhan was likely. YouTube suspended Rand Paul for stating that masks don't work well, and Facebook throttled a science journalist who opposed mask mandates for kids. The media initially dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian interference, with Twitter blocking its sharing and Facebook suppressing it. While the media now admits the story's authenticity, they downplay its importance. The government also allegedly pressured social media companies to censor content. The White House urged Facebook to crack down on private messages, and various government agencies, including the FBI and DHS, made moderation requests to Twitter. The Department of Homeland Security created a Disinformation Governance Board, which was later terminated due to public backlash.

We are partnering with Twitter to provide accurate vaccine information when users search hashtags like vaccination or anti-vaccine. Public health agencies' websites will appear in the search results. Similar collaborations have been done with other organizations. We have also discussed with Facebook about removing scientifically disproven or debunked information. Facebook is currently working with the US CDC and seeking input from experts to identify misinformation. If information is proven to be false, they have the opportunity to remove it. Additionally, we are collaborating with Google and other platforms.

The office of the director of National Intelligence would have only participated in election security briefings with private companies like Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, and state election officials. These meetings did not involve content moderation or the Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. Therefore, there was no authority or reason for anyone in the intelligence community to say otherwise.

Mark Zuckerberg stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress mentions of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. He expressed being stunned by this order from the federal government to deny facts. According to the speaker, they sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy. The speaker claims they were the first target, with Facebook being told to remove them from Instagram, which Facebook did. The speaker asserts they had almost a million followers and posted no vaccine misinformation, challenging Facebook to identify any factual errors in their posts, which were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications.

We are enhancing disinformation research and tracking in the Surgeon General's office. Additionally, we are flagging problematic posts on Facebook for review.

The administration monitors public Facebook profiles for misinformation to combat vaccine hesitancy. There is no secret list, just individuals sharing inaccurate information. The concern is people dying due to misinformation. The focus should be on public health, not privacy concerns. The administration believes in evolving science and providing accurate information. There is no evidence vaccines cause infertility.

The speaker discusses the request for tech companies to combat misinformation and the actions the federal government is taking. They mention being in regular contact with social media platforms, increasing disinformation research, flagging problematic posts, and working with medical professionals to share accurate information. They also mention the creation of the COVID Community Corps and investing time in meeting with influencers. Proposed changes for social media platforms include measuring and sharing the impact of misinformation, creating a robust enforcement strategy, taking faster action against harmful posts, and promoting quality information sources in feed algorithms. The speaker emphasizes the importance of accurate information and the need for cooperation from social media platforms.

Elon Musk will interview Donald Trump on X tomorrow. Misinformation on Twitter is a concern for America. The White House and the president should play a role in stopping its spread. Social media platforms have a responsibility to address misinformation. Specific actions are not mentioned, but it is important to address the issue. The president is likely not tracking this interview.

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.

Twitter released the long-awaited Fauci files, revealing that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied under oath about his use of Twitter. Despite denying any association with the platform, the files show that Fauci took control of the White House COVID response account twice in March and April 2021. Elon Musk had previously mentioned a dedicated Fauci fan club on Twitter, and the report confirms that a former lead company attorney at Twitter worked with Fauci on disinformation. Additionally, Twitter collaborated with pharmaceutical companies to shape vaccine marketing campaigns, actively suppressing opposing views while promoting COVID-19 vaccines.

Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress discussion of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. The speaker claims to have sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy, and the speaker was their first target. Facebook was allegedly told to remove the speaker from Instagram, which they did, despite the speaker's claim that all vaccine-related posts were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications. According to the speaker, Facebook told the White House that the information was not misinformation, but the White House called it "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government. The speaker asserts that numerous individuals, including O.J. Botticello, Marty Makary, Dr. Oz, and Vinay Prasad, were also censored.

Twitter censored the speaker's account in 2021 for sharing COVID vaccine-related information. Internal emails reveal that a Twitter employee named Michael Vincent Coe flagged a tweet for violating COVID misinformation policies. Coe, who has a business administration degree, dismissed the claims without providing evidence. Another Twitter employee, Joseph Guay, also flagged a tweet related to DARPA, questioning their involvement in funding vaccine research. Guay acknowledged that the article linked in the tweet discussed the topic accurately, but deemed the speaker's context as harmful and false. Both employees left Twitter around the same time. The speaker's lawyers are considering legal action.

Jen Psaki stated that most Americans now rely on social media for news, and the Biden administration aims to limit what these platforms can post. The irony of a press person discussing press restrictions was noted. The primary target of censorship is speech, which is crucial for practicing faith, sharing beliefs, and petitioning the government. Without free speech, there is no free press. The committee is dedicated to addressing censorship efforts. Translation: Jen Psaki mentioned that many Americans use social media for news, and the Biden administration wants to control what is posted. The irony of a press representative discussing press limitations was highlighted. The main focus of censorship is speech, which is essential for practicing faith, expressing beliefs, and petitioning the government. Without free speech, there is no free press. The committee is committed to addressing censorship efforts.

The speaker discusses the intelligence community's efforts to share information with social media platforms to address inauthentic content. They clarify that the office of the director of National Intelligence would only participate in approved election security briefings with private companies like Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, and state election officials. These briefings focus on discussing threats and have nothing to do with content moderation or the Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. The speaker mentions that there were weekly meetings between the FBI, DHS, and Twitter, but only one reference to their office. They hope that this reference was part of the approved process for election security briefings.

The transcript discusses a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation document titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, focusing on a scenario called Lockstep. In this scenario, a pandemic strikes in 2012, overwhelming even the best-prepared nations. Approximately 20% of the global population becomes infected and about 8 million people die within seven months. The pandemic devastates economies as international travel and global supply chains collapse, and even developed countries struggle with containment. China is highlighted as having greater success due to rapid, mandatory quarantines and near-closed borders, which saves millions of lives and enables a faster post-pandemic recovery. The account notes that highly intrusive real-time tracking of a largely compliant population was key to lifting lockdowns in Wuhan. The document also asserts that during the pandemic, leaders worldwide imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from mandatory mask-wearing to temperature checks at entry points to communal spaces. Even after the pandemic fades, there is a lasting shift toward more authoritarian control and oversight, with citizens accepting reduced sovereignty and privacy in exchange for safety and stability. In developed countries, biometric IDs and a suite of new regulations are introduced to restore order and economic growth, with the overall message that increased oversight helps achieve stability. The transcript then shifts to Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise held on October 18, 2019, organized by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The exercise simulated the consequences of a pandemic and the societal and economic challenges it would pose, using a coronavirus-like pathogen codenamed Caps. Participants describe how a significant portion of identified cases require hospitalization, causing strain on health systems. They note that some individuals with mild symptoms can still spread the virus unknowingly, and emphasize that disinformation and misinformation undermine the response. There is discussion about how governments, international organizations, and businesses should counter misinformation and ensure reliable information reaches the public. It’s noted that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have identified and removed a large number of accounts spreading disinformation about the outbreak. Some participants argue that strong measures to manage information are necessary, even if it means restricting access to information, to prevent misinformation from jeopardizing the pandemic response or causing political instability. The video then intersperses commentary questioning the coincidence that the 2019 exercise apparently anticipated the 2020 outbreak, with a skeptical tone about whether the scenario was preplanned or predictive. Additional voices from public health organizations warn that an epidemic—whether naturally caused or intentionally—could cause massive harm, with the possibility of ten million excess deaths. A final note reflects on the sense that the world was already prepared in many ways before 2020, suggesting that the pandemic response was part of a long-standing preparation.

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.

The FBI forced social media platforms to remove information from conservative sources, claiming it was disinformation. Speaker 0 asks for a definition of disinformation, but Speaker 1 avoids directly answering. Speaker 0 points out that Elvis Chan, a key witness, testified that 50% of alleged election disinformation was taken down or censored, including content from American citizens. Speaker 1 denies this and states that the FBI does not moderate content or influence social media companies. Speaker 0 insists that Speaker 1 should read the court opinion. The transcript ends abruptly.

To protect social media companies from government pressure to censor content, an incoming administration could issue an executive order on day one. This order would prohibit government grants and contracts to any private company or nonprofit involved in domestic disinformation. This approach addresses the issue of government-funded censorship, allowing for the elimination of grants and contracts that support censorship activities. Currently, there are tens of thousands of individuals in the U.S. whose livelihoods depend on censorship work, a field that emerged in response to the 2016 election.

The speaker claims that individuals from the Biden administration would call and berate their team about certain documents. The speaker says that emails related to this are published. The speaker states that their team refused to take down content that was true, including a meme about potential class action lawsuits related to COVID vaccines. They also refused to remove humor and satire. The speaker alleges that President Biden made a statement suggesting "these guys are killing people," after which various government agencies began investigating their company, which they describe as "brutal."

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.

Censorship remains a pressing issue, especially with recent events in Brazil and the blocking of X. There are concerns about potential repercussions for past censorship actions. Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged being pressured by the FBI, raising questions about accountability. If elected, there will be a commitment to fire those responsible for censorship, including those who misled tech companies like Zuckerberg. This includes the intelligence operatives who falsely labeled the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. It's essential to strip these individuals of their security clearances and hold them accountable for lying to the public for political gain. Disgraceful actions must have consequences.

Newly released Facebook files reveal the White House's efforts to control the COVID narrative on social media. Internal communications show that White House officials demanded more data and targeting tools from Facebook to promote vaccinations. The exchanges became heated, with the White House berating Facebook employees for not providing enough information. Facebook eventually delivered a data dump to the White House. The specific information they were trying to combat on Facebook included conversations about vaccine side effects and vaccine hesitancy. There was a push and pull between Facebook and the White House regarding the level of cooperation and information sharing. Facebook emphasized the need to protect privacy and freedom of speech.

The administration is urging companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation. They are in regular contact with social media platforms through senior staff and the COVID-19 team. The Surgeon General's office has increased disinformation research and tracking. The federal government is taking actions to address this issue.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.