TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Every country struggles to define the boundaries of online speech. In the U.S., the First Amendment complicates this, requiring exceptions to free speech, such as falsely yelling fire in a theater. Anonymity online can exacerbate the problem. Over time, with technologies like deepfakes, people will likely prefer online environments where users are truly identified and connected to real-world identities they trust, rather than allowing anonymous individuals to say anything. Systems will be needed to verify the source and creator of online content.

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.

"New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD." "Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist." "Anti defamationally gets a green light." "Only for some. Yes. If you're reporting about the about the Arab Israeli conflict? Yes. You may not cite them." "You can't you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore on Wikipedia." "There is a a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia." "Daily Caller not allowed." "Life site news not allowed." "Sputnik, of course, not allowed." "TV Guide allowed." "The Uns review not allowed." "TV Guide totally cool." "Uns. V dare not allow." "Mister x is the name of his account." "This is obviously huge news."

Larry Sanger explains Wikipedia’s origin with Jimmy Wales, stating "I coined the name Wikipedia" and that he drafted policies like "the neutrality policy" to "summarize knowledge fairly and without bias." He notes the project later aligned with center-left media, and the "neutral point of view" now "discourages giving equal validity to, minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claims." Conservatives were pushed out; "85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous" and "the Wikimedia Foundation enjoys section two thirty immunity." The "perennial sources page" blacklist blocks Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist. Sanger’s nine theses: 1 end decision making by consensus; 2 enable competing articles; 3 abolish source blacklists; 4 revive the original neutrality policy; 5 repeal ignore all rules; 6 reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are; 7 let the public rate articles; 8 end indefinite blocking; 9 adopt a legislative process.

Section 230 protects Wikipedia from lawsuits. Lawyers have stated that a suit against Wikipedia, even in a case of a damaging entry, would be instantly dismissed because of this section. While this is currently true, it is not the case in the third, fourth, and fifth circuits. Judges reflexively dismiss such cases based on established case law, turning Section 230 into immunity from suit, which it is not. According to Speaker 1, the ninth circuit won't allow a case to proceed to fix this. Speaker 1 believes Supreme Court intervention is needed. A judge stated that until the Supreme Court weighs in, lower courts cannot fix the issue in California, circumventing due process and First Amendment rights.

History is often said to be written by the victors, but this saying overlooks the power of the losers who have ample time to edit Wikipedia. The ones who can gather the most editors are the true authors of history. The losers, with their abundance of free time, spend it editing Wikipedia.

"What's the CIA budget? You can't get an answer because nobody knows." "And I don't think many people at CIA know, actually, because it's so compartmentalized." "I mean, it's a country CIA is not part of really the US government." "There's no accountability at all." "They run companies." "They have an army." "They kill people." "They spy on people." "None of it with any oversight whatsoever or even knowledge of what they're doing." "Even again, I'm not sure the CI director knows himself what the whole agency is doing." "That's all a byproduct of nine eleven." "Nine eleven made that possible."

"Anti defamation league gets a green light." "Only for some. Yes." "You may not cite them." "You can't you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore." "Not to my knowledge, except now there is a congressional investigation." "I don't know if my tweet had anything to do with the start of that." "I think it had more to do with the reporting of Ashley Rinsberg." "And well, of course, Israel and I would add, Hindus are very bothered with the way that their ethnic groups are treated in Wikipedia." "And both of both a whole bunch of Jews and Hindus have been after me in the last couple of years saying, you've got to speak out." "You've got to speak out." "People who are organized have a way to push back against the lying." "I think that if, like, Israeli intelligence, for example, got together and made a real concerted effort to to fight against the this group of 40 Muslim activists that Ashley Rinsberg identified." "They might be able to make some inroads." "It really depends It's possible."

Wikipedia, the web-based encyclopedia, was founded on the idea of crowd-sourced, user-generated content. However, concerns have been raised about political bias in its editing process. While Wikipedia claims to be open to anyone editing, there is evidence of left-leaning bias among its administrators. Reliable sources on the left are deemed acceptable, while conservative outlets are often rejected. Examples of bias include downplaying violence by the Antifa movement and minimizing the atrocities of socialism and communism. Attempts to correct these biases are quickly reverted. Despite its popularity, many are skeptical of the political neutrality of Wikipedia and have stopped donating to the platform.

Speaker 0: I began my journey into chronicling the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 1: Some of the most terrifying conversations I've had with some of my dear friends who work inside CIA, and their jobs is to go to other countries, get involved in elections, protests that will help overthrow a regime. It's no secret at this point. The CIA has been doing that for years, for decades. But the most terrifying conversations I've had are the ones where they would look to me and say, my god. Like, the twenty twenty election? We're doing to our people what we do to others. Speaker 2: CIA, the other intelligence agencies were exposed with projects like Operation Mockingbird. Speaker 0: The State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency went from free speech diplomacy to promoting censorship. Speaker 2: They created, purchased, controlled assets at the New York Times, the Washington Post, all of these top down media structures that used to control the information that Americans got. Speaker 3: I pulled into the driveway, opened up my garage door, these two gentlemen come out of a blue sedan with government license plates. And they came up to me and said, you're mister Solomon? And I said, yes. And they said, you're at the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. The the FBI sent agents over to my home to serve a subpoena. They're questioning me about my tweets. How is that not chilling? Speaker 2: Our whole page on Facebook for the world Seventh day Adventist World Church was removed. Speaker 5: The level of censorship that we experienced from publishing this documentary was beyond anything I could have imagined, and we really didn't even understand why. Speaker 3: We are going to win back the White House. The Russian collusion started broken '16. That's where the big lie first erupted. Speaker 6: Russian operatives used social media to rile up the American electorate and boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. Speaker 0: That's why they went after Trump with the Russia gate and with the FBI probes and with the CIA impeachments and things like that. Speaker 3: My FBI sources told me there's nothing there. And I kept wondering to myself, how could it be that something that's not true be taken so seriously and be portrayed as true? Speaker 7: How do you expand sort of top down control in this society? How do we flip? How do we invert America? Speaker 6: The evidence that the Supreme Court recounts is bone chilling. The federal government would call a private media company and say, cancel this speaker or take down this post. Speaker 3: I mean, just think about this. A sitting president of The United States had his Twitter and Facebook accounts frozen. Our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined that. Is there a chance that this documentary will be censored? Speaker 1: I think there's a huge chance this documentary gets censored. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it's interesting when you look at so many of the big censorship cases in The United States involving COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop. They all go back to a common thread. What is that thread? National security. Speaker 0: Google Jigsaw produced world's first AI censorship product. Things the model were trained on, support for Donald Trump, Brexit referendum that the State Department tried very desperately to stop. These are all these sort Speaker 5: of component pieces of what you called the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 3: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Speaker 2: Industrial Complex. Speaker 7: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Industrial Complex. Speaker 1: I've long felt that it was a bubbling god complex.

A congresswoman questioned Miss Mar about her public statements and social media posts, which the congresswoman characterized as left-wing ideology and opposition to free speech. The congresswoman cited Mar's past role as head of Wikipedia, which she claimed doesn't tell the truth, and statements calling Donald Trump a "deranged racist and sociopath" and America "addicted to white supremacy." The congresswoman also criticized Mar for chastising the use of "boy and girl" and for calling the First Amendment the "number one challenge in American journalism." The congresswoman asked Mar if it was up to her or NPR to crack down on bad information and decide the truth. Mar stated she is a strong believer in free speech. The congresswoman then referenced a 2021 Atlantic Council event where Mar said she took a very active approach to disinformation and misinformation as CEO of Wikipedia, censoring information through conversations with government during the COVID pandemic and the 2020 election. The congresswoman asked if those governments included the Biden administration. Mar stated that Wikipedia never censored any information.

Free and open principles, originating from the open-source community, were initially seen as foundational. However, it's argued that this approach is limited in achieving broader goals. Despite good intentions, free and open models, particularly in Wikipedia, often replicate existing offline power structures. Wikipedia, it's claimed, reconstructed knowledge around the Western canon, leading to the exclusion of languages and communities. The emphasis on reliable sources and written tradition favors cultures with such traditions. Notability standards are said to reflect a Westernized construct, influencing whose voices are elevated. Therefore, radical openness allegedly failed to fulfill its intended potential.

Goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world. As a way of example, if someone searches the Gaza Flotilla, we wanna be there. We wanna be the the guys who influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure that it's balanced and Zionist in their nature. Three days after the US Congress action, the House Oversight Committee demanded Wikipedia turn over identifying info for users who may be spreading anti Israel content based on a report from our ADL. Screenshots show: "we seek your assistance in obtaining documents and communications regarding individuals or specific accounts serving as Wikipedia volunteer editors who violated Wikipedia platform policies as well as your own efforts to thwart intentional organized efforts to inject bias into important and sensitive topics." Also: "one recent report raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance anti Semitic and anti Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the state of Israel." Records show identifying characteristics of accounts, IP addresses, registration dates, user activity logs for editors subject to ARBCOMM, analysis by Wikimedia Foundation, patterns of manipulation or bias related to antisemitism and conflicts with the state of Israel. Jen and Munis: "Many of the people on that committee claimed to be anti censorship during Biden's tenure. The brazen hypocrisy is almost unbearable." Squirrel: "the Israeli regime regime's propaganda complex has dedicated courses and entire teams focused on editing Wikipedia so that it reflects their genocidal worldview." A Nico Haus video argues this is "the exact same thing that Israel themselves have been doing for literal years." Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, says that Wikipedia just isn't scientist enough for the ADL's life; "18 times more likely a small group of people to communicate in their group communications," tandem editing, and "30 or so people are able to manipulate articles on antisemitism, on Israel, on The Middle East." Naftali Bennett: "Wet'suftiyeh, in conjunction with my Israel, has arranged instruction day for wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world. As a way of example, if someone searches the Gaza Flotilla, we wanna be there. We wanna be the the guys who influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure that it's balanced and, Zionist in their nature." They claim Wikipedia protects Zionists and still omits key facts, such as regarding October 7 or the West Bank, and conclude with a pointed remark about genocide.

- The blacklisted sources are Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist. - Greenlit sources: New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD. These are all greenlit, fully greenlit. - Red means it's blacklisted. You cannot cite it as a source of facts. Maybe as a source of opinion, but generally that works out. - Anti defamationally gets a green light. Only for some; Yes. If you're actually reporting about the Arab—The Israeli conflict? Yes. You may not cite them. - There is a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia. - Counterpunch is not allowed. Daily Caller not allowed. Sputnik, of course, not allowed. - Daily Mail not yeah. I did start it. I've got nothing to do with it now, but I did start it. - Life site news not allowed. - Mister x is the name of his account. - TV guide allowed.

Speaker 0 explains that Grok uses heavy inference compute to examine information across formats such as Wikipedia pages, books, PDFs, and websites to determine what is true, partially true, false, or missing. It then rewrites the page to remove falsehoods, correct the half truths, and add the missing context. Speaker 1 adds Elon’s question about publishing that process and proposes the idea of a Grokopedia. He notes that Wikipedia is biased and described as “a constant war,” with content that gets corrected quickly facing an army of people trying to mean it. He suggests that if what Grok fixes on Wikipedia could be published as a source of truth, it would be valuable for the world to have it. Speaker 0 responds by saying he will talk to the team about that concept, mentioning Grokpedia or whatever they might call it, and provides a Grokpedia version as a concrete example.

"Goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world." "The house oversight committee demanded Wikipedia turnover identifying info for users who may be spreading anti Israel content based on a report from who else? Our friends at the ADL." "one recent report raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance anti Semitic and anti Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the state of Israel." "the Israeli regime regime's propaganda complex has dedicated courses and entire teams focused on editing Wikipedia so that it reflects their genocidal worldview." "Go to Wikipedia right now. Look up October 7 and see if there is any mention of the literal thousands of Palestinians who have been held hostage."

History is shaped by those who control Wikipedia editing. Losers have time to edit Wikipedia, influencing the narrative.

Facebook and other platforms have the power to manipulate content without explanation or transparency. They can secretly ban candidates or limit their reach while boosting other content. Elon Musk believes this is done in the name of free speech and to benefit people.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

- Wikipedia's most powerful editors remain overwhelmingly anonymous despite wielding enormous influence over one of the world's most powerful media platforms. These leaders must be publicly identified for accountability and given liability insurance as, you know, as volunteers of nonprofits often are. - I don't think it's widely known that 85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous. - Wikipedia should implement a public rating and feedback system allowing readers to evaluate articles. They can't do that now. They don't have a comment section. They don't have any sort of rating section. - End indefinite blocking. Wikipedia's practice of blocking accounts permanently is unjust and ideologically motivated. In a period of two weeks, 47% of the blocks that had been done by Wikipedia were indefinite. - Indefinite blocks should be extremely rare and require multiple administrators to agree, with an appeal process for permanent blocks.

My Israel has arranged an instruction day for Wiki editors to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, the number one source of information today. If someone searches Gaza flotilla, we wanna be there, to influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure it's balanced and Zionist in nature. A participant says they came to learn how Israelis and Jews can defend Israel online, particularly in Wikipedia. They describe Wikipedia as a complex system and note that edits against Israel were erased or undone. They argue this knowledge is important for anyone who wants to defend Israel online, to see when information isn't quite right, to counter one-sided storytelling, and to ensure the other side of the story gets the right coverage. They state that content is filled with antisemitism, anti Zionism, and garbage, and call for activists to promote defense of Israel.

- Grokopedia is introduced as a new alternative to Wikipedia, built on Elon Musk’s xAI model designed for deep understanding and reasoning, not just regurgitating text. - The program suggests Wikipedia has shifted left over time. It recounts how, ten years ago, Wikipedia was praised as a dream and as a replacement for traditional encyclopedias, with Britannica’s editor deriding encyclopedias as requiring paid researchers, while Wikipedia grew to become the world’s go-to resource and Britannica stopped printing books. - The speakers claim that, although Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, politics on the site is dominated by leftists. They point to examples of editors who advertise socialist views and display images of Che Guevara and Lenin. - They state that Wikipedia’s bias is evident in who counts as reliable or not, asserting that conservative media are deemed unreliable while outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, Slate, The Nation, and Mother Jones are considered reliable. They claim Fox News is treated as unreliable, while Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable. - The narrative asserts bias in topic coverage and notability decisions. They mention a controversy over an article about a Ukrainian refugee that was deleted on the grounds it might not meet notability, contrasting it with other crimes that remained in Wikipedia. They also note a case where a suspect’s name was blacked out because he hadn’t been convicted, but another case (Kyle Rittenhouse) was named despite his status as a minor and not convicted. - The discussion includes claims that public pressure can sway Wikipedia at times (e.g., Irina Zerutsko’s article staying after outcry), but overall “nothing changes.” They describe a group of editors they call the “gang of forty,” who allegedly push propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict by removing mentions of terror attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, and they describe a page titled “Donald Trump and Fascism” created just before a presidential election as interfering with elections. - They argue that Wikipedia presents a single worldview on major topics, excluding other perspectives, citing Fidel Castro’s successor Raul Castro as lacking the term “authoritarian” on his page, while other leaders have such labels applied. They also discuss government censorship and state-controlled outlets influencing Wikipedia’s content, noting that Chinese government censors flood the site and that China runs state propaganda outlets cited tens of thousands of times. - The COVID-19 lab-leak theory is discussed, with the speakers claiming that while evidence later emerged suggesting a lab origin, Wikipedia still claims “no evidence supporting laboratory involvement,” calling it a conspiracy theory. - Grokopedia is presented as offering an alternative where Grok lists investigations that affirm a lab-leak as the most probable origin, and the speaker says Grok is better than Wikipedia on their own page, which they claim contains mistakes and smears on the Wikipedia platform. - They mention other competing projects like Justopedia, founded by a veteran Wikipedia editor who wanted an alternative due to perceived left-wing bias; Scienceopedia and Justopedia are described as gaining momentum to provide more source variety. - The discussion closes with perspectives on governance of Wikipedia’s editorial direction: Catherine Mayer, head of the Wikimedia Foundation, is portrayed as evolving Wikipedia toward a woke and DEI ideology, with Maurer described as shaping critical years starting in 2016 and steering the foundation toward a social justice mission. - The speakers conclude with a call for dedicated, area-specific editors to enter and influence topics, suggesting that a few dozen committed editors could make a difference, though acknowledging the time required.

Speaker explains how to find Wikipedia's blacklist by typing perennial sources, Wikipedia into any search engine; the first result is the page, and it names them the blacklist. It’s color coded: Green means fully approved; red means blacklisted. Fully greenlit sources include New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD. Blacklisted sources include Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist. Red means it's blacklisted; you cannot cite it as a source of facts, maybe as a source of opinion. Anti defamationally gets a green light, only for some; if you're actually reporting about the Arab-Israeli conflict, you may not cite them. You can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore on Wikipedia. Catholic hierarchy celebrity. There's a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Daily Caller not allowed. Life site news not allowed. Sputnik not allowed. TV Guide allowed. The Uns review not allowed. Mister x is the name of his account; it’s edited by a whole bunch of other people.