reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker testified about the censorship industrial complex, revealing that it is worse than previously thought. Internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League showed military contractors working to censor and use psychological operations against Americans. While some argue that social media platforms have the right to censor content, the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. Evidence suggests that the government encouraged private entities to engage in censorship. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) played a central role, along with other government agencies. CISA created the Election Integrity Partnership, which urged platforms to censor posts, resulting in a 75% response rate. CISA and the White House also demanded censorship of COVID-related content. The speaker calls for defunding and dismantling these organizations, or implementing significant oversight to prevent future censorship. They also suggest making liability protections contingent on transparent moderation and public reporting of censorship requests.

Recently, internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League were released, revealing that US and UK military contractors were involved in censoring and using psychological operations and disinformation tactics against the American people. While some argue that social media platforms have the right to remove content that violates their terms of service, it is important to note that the government cannot encourage or promote actions that infringe upon freedom of speech. The whistleblower behind these files claims that the leader of the CTIL was present at the Obama White House in 2017, receiving instructions to counter disinformation and prevent a repeat of the events in 2016.

The Global Engagement Center, established by Rick Stengel, aimed to synchronize government narratives with mainstream media. Stengel, who previously argued against the First Amendment, initiated this center to combat perceived threats like ISIS by collaborating with tech platforms to censor content. Following Trump's election, State Department officials pushed for censorship laws in Europe, leading to automated censorship mechanisms in the U.S. The Atlantic Council, with ties to the CIA and government funding, played a key role in promoting these laws. They developed AI tools to monitor and censor online speech, particularly around controversial topics like COVID-19 and the 2020 election, effectively suppressing dissenting narratives.

The speaker discusses the issue of censorship in the United States and how it is eroding freedom of speech. They explain that censorship is now being justified under the guise of fighting disinformation and misinformation, and that even factual and truthful statements can be labeled as disinformation and censored. The speaker highlights the role of the government in directing these censorship efforts, particularly in relation to the military industrial complex and the defense industry. They also discuss the censorship of the 2020 election and the manipulation of public opinion through coordinated efforts between government agencies and mainstream media. The speaker warns that platforms like X, which currently offer more freedom of speech, are under pressure and may face increased censorship in the future.

The discussion centers on the evolution of internet censorship, particularly since 2014, when the U.S. government began collaborating with tech companies and NGOs to combat perceived misinformation. The conversation highlights the intertwining of foreign policy and domestic censorship, especially after the 2016 election, which prompted a significant shift in how the government approached free speech. The role of organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and the Atlantic Council in shaping censorship policies is emphasized, as well as the influence of figures like Hunter Biden in this landscape. The dialogue also touches on the implications of these actions for democracy and the challenges faced by those attempting to reform these systems. The speakers express concern over the potential for censorship to undermine free speech and the integrity of democratic processes.

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.

Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council were used as a front by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to manipulate social media during the 2020 election. The goal was to censor posts containing misinformation about mail-in ballots and other election-related topics. DHS lacked the legal authority to directly censor, so they set up the Election Infrastructure Partnership (EIP) to fill the gaps. These outside organizations received federal funding and worked closely with DHS to ban or throttle millions of posts and accounts. The entire operation was orchestrated to rig the election. The question now is whether there will be political accountability for these actions.

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.

In 2016, the US saw a shift towards mass censorship following events like the Ukraine coup. NATO and the Pentagon adopted a "from tanks to tweets" approach, focusing on controlling information online. This led to the development of AI censorship tools and the establishment of connections between government agencies and tech platforms. The narrative of Russian influence was used to justify censorship efforts, which intensified after Trump's election. However, the collapse of Russiagate in 2019 left the censorship infrastructure without a clear justification.

The defining characteristic of the United States is freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, this fundamental right is rapidly eroding due to censorship disguised as combating disinformation and malinformation. This censorship, directed by the US government, is not limited to the private sector. Mike Benz, an expert on this issue, explains how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors manipulate this. Internet freedom, initially used for supporting dissident groups globally, has become a tool for censorship since 2014. NATO now views controlling media as crucial for political influence, targeting even domestic groups. This shift accelerated after the 2016 election, with Russiagate providing cover for domestic censorship. The 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic saw massive censorship, with government agencies and private entities working together to suppress dissenting voices. This system uses AI-powered tools to identify and remove content deemed harmful to "democratic institutions," effectively creating military rule disguised as democracy. The fight to preserve free speech is now centered on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), which are facing immense pressure from both governmental and international entities.

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, 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.

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.

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 speaker testified about the censorship industrial complex, revealing that it is worse than previously thought. Internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League showed military contractors working to censor and use psychological operations against Americans. While social media platforms have the right to censor content, the government is prohibited by the First Amendment from abridging freedom of speech. Evidence suggests that the government encouraged private entities to engage in censorship. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) played a central role, along with other federal agencies. CISA created the Election Integrity Partnership, which urged platforms to censor posts, resulting in a 75% response rate. CISA and the White House also demanded censorship of COVID-related content. The speaker calls for defunding and dismantling these organizations, or implementing significant oversight to prevent future censorship. They also propose changes to section 230 liability protections and transparency in censorship requests.

Mike Benz, a former State Department official and cybersecurity expert, discusses how the US government has weaponized its power to control media and censor citizens. He explains that the foreign policy establishment, including the State Department, CIA, and Pentagon, has historically used these tactics against foreign governments but has now turned them on the American people. Benz outlines the chronology of how the government established censorship centers within agencies like the Global Engagement Center and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to control social media and suppress populist political movements. He also raises questions about the government's role in COVID-19 censorship and the origins of the virus.

The speaker claims that after the war on terror, the US and UK military employed counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and counter-populism tactics, initially used in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, against the American people following the 2016 populist revolutions. These tactics allegedly included social media manipulation to foment revolutions and censorship to repress conflicting opinions. The speaker cites Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop situation as examples of these tactics, along with the mobilization of the intelligence community. They further claim that the Agency for International Development has overseen a takeover of independent investigative journalism in Europe and worldwide via OCCRP and other supposedly independent organizations to control information and major news media.

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.

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.