TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

Last week, the China Select Committee and I urged the FBI to update Congress on its investigation into TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance. Forbes revealed that ByteDance gave Chinese government regulators access to sensitive TikTok data. This means that the Chinese government can spy on and influence Americans through the app. ByteDance's own investigators admitted to tracking American journalists and accessing their data. Public data analysis also suggests that TikTok allows anti-Semitic bias while censoring content sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. The State Department reported that ByteDance kept a list of users likely blocked for supporting Uyghur Muslims. The FBI needs to share its findings on ByteDance and TikTok with Congress promptly. Time is running out.

The restrict act, Senate bill 686, grants the government access to data from video devices used by over 1,000,000 people. It raises concerns about privacy and potential abuse of power similar to the Patriot Act. The bill also proposes penalties for using VPNs to access certain websites. Critics fear it may limit free speech and digital freedom. The bill has sparked controversy and calls to oppose it.

TikTok, the popular short video platform owned by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has been fined $370 million by the EU for violating privacy laws related to children's personal data. Concerns have also been raised about TikTok being used as a tool for espionage, with allegations that ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, allowed CCP members to access the data of Hong Kong activists. As a result, several countries are considering banning TikTok and other CCP social media apps like Zoom, WeChat, and Alibaba. These apps are seen as part of the CCP's unrestricted war against civilians worldwide during peacetime.

Foreign governments are using their own laws to censor information for Americans, like the EU's Digital Services Act, which threatens companies with fines if they don't comply. We've requested communications between these foreign entities and tech companies to reveal this pressure. We're also sending letters to the UK, EU, and Brazil to put them on notice that we're watching their actions. It's unacceptable for foreign governments to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We saw this with the Biden administration pressuring companies to censor, which thankfully has been stopped. Free speech is a core value of Western civilization, and we must protect it. We're aiming to safeguard the rights of Americans and help companies resist these shakedowns.

The UK's Online Safety Act, similar to laws in Australia and proposed legislation in the US (COSA), aims to regulate online content, ostensibly to protect children. Critics argue it grants the government power to define and remove "harmful" content, potentially censoring dissent. The act pressures encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal to monitor user chats, possibly requiring the breaking of end-to-end encryption. Age verification measures, including face scans and government IDs, are required for sites with adult content, but could expand to all user-generated platforms, raising privacy concerns. Critics argue criminals will bypass the law while law-abiding citizens face surveillance and censorship. The act allows Ofcom to order takedowns or block websites, granting the government indirect control over online speech. The UK government is reportedly using the act to censor protest footage. Concerns are raised about politicians being targeted for questioning government policies. Similar legislation is underway in the US, and the UN aims to implement a global social credit system. Australia will implement age checks from search engines. Apple has patented technology to identify people by body parts, even when their face isn't visible. These steps are seen as incremental moves towards a digital gulag, with governments controlling online activity and purchases.

Governments worldwide are imposing strict regulations on social media platforms, potentially ending freedom of speech. The European Union aims to give NGOs and state sponsors control over content moderation by requiring tech companies to share data with vetted researchers. In the US, the RESTRICT Act threatens severe penalties for accessing blacklisted websites through virtual private networks. Ireland may imprison citizens for possessing material deemed hateful, while Canada allows state agencies to filter online content. Australia grants government officials the power to compel social media companies to remove posts. These policies have been introduced quietly, with little media coverage or public outcry. This marks a significant moment in the history of the internet, as governments gain the ability to control the information people have access to.

Speaker 0 argues Canada introduced a bill allowing the minister to 'kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their phone.' 'If there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, the minister may prohibit a telecommunication service provider from providing any service to the specified person.' He warns 15.2 clause five makes the decision 'secret.' He says this signals 'Chinese Communist Party levels of government overreach.' He links the bill to the digital ID agenda and World Economic Forum's claim that digital identity is crucial for 'civic participation' and to UN 'Real ID' plans, noting Rand Paul tweets. He argues it could isolate people from paying bills, banking, or organizing politics, describing a potential 'digital gulag.' He advocates repeal in the US and hopes Canada defeats the agenda.

TikTok poses a significant threat as it can access private data on your phone, including keystrokes. This means sensitive information like usernames and passwords for banking can be obtained. Unlike other social media platforms, TikTok goes beyond collecting data for advertising purposes. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has ulterior motives, aiming to harm the American people. In the event of a conflict, the data collected from American consumers will be used against them and their communities.

Signal, a company, may be asked by the regulator Ofcom about the data they gather. Signal claims they don't collect data on people's messages. However, the concern is that the bill doesn't specify this and instead gives Ofcom the power to demand spyware downloads to check messages against a permissible database. This sets a precedent for authoritarian regimes and goes against the principles of a liberal democracy. It is seen as unprecedented and a negative shift in surveillance practices.

Counselor Lisa Robinson argues that Bill C8 and Bill C9 are not protective measures but power grabs in disguise, aimed at expanding government control at the expense of Canadians’ freedoms. She claims Bill C8, titled the Cybersecurity Act, would allow the government to seize control of telecom networks, issue secret orders, and cut off access without notifying individuals. Under C8, the government could tell internet providers what to block, remove, or silence, justified by cybersecurity and national security, effectively giving the government power to “pull the plug on your voice.” Regarding Bill C9, she describes it as the hate propaganda and hate crime bill, asserting it would let the government decide what symbols are hateful and what speech is intimidating, with prosecutors able to pursue cases for “the wrong things.” She emphasizes that C9 removes the attorney general’s oversight, meaning prosecutors could pursue hate speech actions without a second opinion or accountability. She frames this as ideology with a badge and warns it would target speech rather than stop hate, undermining free expression. She stresses that combined, C8 and C9 erode digital independence and freedom of speech, enabling the government to determine what you may say and how you say it, and to shut you down if you dissent. She warns that such power could be abused over time and that history shows powers granted in this way tend to be used against ordinary people. She opposes the idea that protecting democracy requires censoring speech, arguing instead that democracy is defended by defending the right to offend, to question, and to challenge power. Her call to action is direct: contact MPs, flood inboxes, call offices, and tell them to vote no on C8 and C9. She warns that passing these bills would not only reduce privacy but strip the freedom to discuss them, turning Canada toward a “digital dictatorship run by bureaucrats and hate speech committees.” She concludes by urging Canadians to wake up, defend freedom now, and reject C8 and C9, presenting herself as the People’s Counselor who will “never whisper the truth to protect a lie.” She ends with a plea to follow, subscribe, and share the message, and a final exhortation to stand strong and say no to the bills.

Banning TikTok is a violation of the First Amendment. It's disappointing that the ruling was made without evidence, as 170 million Americans use the app for self-expression. The government's accusations lack proof, and TikTok has offered to store data in the U.S. and work with Oracle. It's often misreported as a Chinese company, but 60% is owned by international investors. While this ruling is disappointing, the battle may not be over. There’s hope that President Trump could take executive action to address this issue, as President Biden may have left that option open.

A bill called the Kids Online Safety Act (COSA) has been sponsored by 40 senators from both parties. The bill aims to require individuals to upload their driver's license before using their First Amendment rights on the internet. It claims to protect children from restricted content but will actually restrict internet access for everyone and require proof of age for viewing any controversial topics. The bill allows attorney generals to sue internet companies like TikTok and Facebook if they don't ensure that users viewing controversial content are over 18. This will require companies to collect users' driver's license information. The bill is bipartisan, with senators from different states supporting it. Critics argue that it's a way to trace individuals' online posts back to their home addresses.

The speaker opposes a bill targeting TikTok, arguing it will benefit Facebook and violate privacy. They suggest focusing on legislative solutions to root problems like protecting Americans' privacy and competitiveness with China. The speaker criticizes the bill's length and potential for abuse, urging colleagues to reject it due to negative consequences. They emphasize the need for warrants in the FISA program and express concern about prosecuting Americans under the bill. The speaker questions the effectiveness of banning TikTok while still relying on Chinese-made products.

The issue at hand is who controls the algorithm of TikTok, which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance. Chinese companies, particularly technological champions, are influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The concern is whether we should allow the dominant media platform in America to be controlled by the CCP. TikTok is not only a platform for dance videos but also a source of news for young Americans. If the Chinese Communist Party can control the information people receive, they will have significant power. This is the concern we must address.

The UK plans to imprison citizens for up to 15 years for viewing what the government labels as far-right propaganda online. This raises significant questions about the control over online algorithms and the consequences of inadvertently encountering such content. Who defines what constitutes far-right propaganda? Given current standards, even posts by figures like JK Rowling could be classified this way. Concerns also arise about the enforcement of these laws, reminiscent of existing social media regulations on hate speech and misinformation. The situation seems to be escalating rapidly, prompting a call for awareness and support from those observing these developments.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss what they call the TikTok ban bill, claiming it does more than just ban TikTok. They assert that foreign adversaries can change definitions at any time, listing a few already, but saying these definitions can change, enabling broader control. They warn that a group could be labeled as foreign adversaries, including doctors, by loosely defined terms. They claim the bill covers hardware technology such as modems, routers, home cameras, and virtual tech like VPNs, and bans them if they are manufactured by or used to contact and deal with foreign adversaries. They explain that a VPN is a virtual private network that allows users to search on Google while revealing data about them, and that using VPNs to bypass banned apps like TikTok becomes a criminal act under the bill, with penalties of a minimum imprisonment of twenty years and a minimum fine of $250,000 or $1,000,000 depending on whether the act was knowingly done to access banned content. The bill allegedly grants the federal government power to monitor any activity used by these suspected devices, whether virtual or not, effectively enabling twenty-four-seven monitoring of home activity without informing users. They list examples including routers, video games, streaming apps, smart thermostats, Ring cameras, and essentially anything that uses the internet, noting that cell phones and Alexa are included and that conversations could be used against individuals in court. They emphasize a particularly terrifying aspect: the bill would have the president appoint a secretary of communication, who then forms a group independently, without voter input, with meetings behind closed doors. This group could ban and deem anything inappropriate or a security risk at any moment, and could censor via access to instant messages, emails, texts, and anything that uses the internet. The speakers warn that if this passes, videos like theirs could disappear as apps like Telegram, which enable them to speak freely, might be removed. They question who in the government would decide what content is banned versus allowed content. They urge viewers to consider this deeply. In summary, they contend the bill could effectively ban anything the government deems inappropriate very quickly without warning, with ramifications including disrupting mass communication methods and enabling spying on home devices and cameras. They assert the bill is “that bad,” insisting they are not using hyperbole. Speaker 0 adds a metaphor about banning books from libraries and facing jail for accessing banned books, suggesting the bill represents a push for complete control and urging people to wake up and investigate further.

Millions of people are being purged from the Internet as big tech titans have the power to control and censor. It's time to recognize social media companies as public utilities, just like electricity and telephone services. Social media is essential for businesses, nonprofits, and political campaigns. The establishment has been censoring those who question them, using any excuse to consolidate power. We must unite as Americans and demand an Internet bill of rights that protects our freedom of speech in cyberspace. This is the United States, where our right to free speech is not optional.

The issues identified, such as moral decay, privacy invasion, and competition with China, are acknowledged. However, the proposed solutions may worsen the problems. Legislative measures like the 4th Amendment is Not for Sale Act would better protect privacy. The current bill, while well-intentioned, seems to primarily benefit Facebook rather than the American people. It lacks necessary provisions, such as a sunset clause, and risks abuse similar to the FISA program. The bill targets American companies by threatening civil action against them for hosting TikTok, rather than addressing the actual company. Ultimately, it restricts Americans' access to software and websites. Therefore, this bill should be opposed due to its potential negative consequences.

The TikTok ban is concerning due to its ties to China and potential spying. Regardless of the ban, we need unity among states and should focus on the real issues, like the influence of wealthy elites. TikTok poses dangers, especially with misinformation and its impact on youth. While I appreciate TikTok, I’m more worried about inappropriate content in schools. We should prioritize banning harmful ideologies rather than just TikTok. If you choose to use TikTok, be cautious.

Canada will be a police state by Christmas if parliament passes bills c two, c eight, and c nine in their current form. C two is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant, it criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than 10,000, and it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous. There have been warnings that the Online Harms Act, which prior to the last election was known as bill c 63, might be reintroduced. If brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive noncriminal speech with penalties up to $50,000. You're gonna see a digital safety commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respect of of the Internet and Internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively based because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wear an ankle bracelet in respect to curfew, etcetera. Giving the federal government giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the Internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security. Our freedoms are fragile. It's imperative that every Canadian contact their member of parliament, whether your MP is liberal, conservative, NDP, block, or green, does not matter. Contact your member of parliament and tell him or her to vote against bills c two, c eight, c nine, and tell them to not bring back the online harms act.

The RESTRICT Act is compared to the Patriot Act 2.0 for the Internet, as it would give unelected bureaucrats in the department of commerce unrestricted access to our personal data. This includes information from our computers, phones, security cameras, browsing history, and payment applications. The act eliminates transparency and criminalizes the use of VPNs, with severe penalties of up to 20 years in prison and hefty fines. Disturbingly, there is no opportunity to challenge this in court. This poses a direct threat to our constitutional rights, freedoms, and democracy. It is crucial that we prevent this from being passed.

The Supreme Court protects freedoms when Congress and presidents overreach, but those freedoms are currently under threat. Government officials have pressured tech companies to censor alleged misinformation, much of which has proven true. Authoritarian governments control the press, speech, and legal processes, using courts to stifle opponents. America is rapidly becoming a one-party state. The Supreme Court has so far restrained the "censorship industrial complex" run by the Democrats, but a Democratic victory in the upcoming election could lead to the appointment of judges who would end democracy. The only hope is a populist movement, including "foreign democrats," to defend the republic. Therefore, everyone should vote Trump to protect the Constitution.