reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses their recent demonetization on a social media platform and the coordinated attacks they have faced. They explain that they were demonetized without any notification or reason given. They also address the controversy surrounding a documentary they released and clarify that they did interview a man who later claimed he was not interviewed. The speaker believes that they are being targeted because of their success and effectiveness in reaching a wide audience. They also mention the backlash they have received from pro-Israel individuals and their America First stance. The speaker criticizes the gatekeeping and attacks within the movement and questions the motives behind the coordinated efforts against them.

In 2022, as Director of Information Security at The Intercept, the speaker wrote articles critical of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter, including his purging of leftist accounts and reinstatement of neo-Nazis and anti-vaxxers. Subsequently, Musk permanently suspended the speaker's account, then reinstated it after a poll, but demanded deletion of a tweet. Instead, the speaker quit Twitter for a year. The speaker now works with a collective that makes open-source security and privacy software, including Syd.social, an app to delete data from X and migrate tweets to Blue Sky. The speaker is also involved in Tesla Takedown, a nonviolent movement aiming to devalue Tesla stock and force Musk to sell shares to cover his Twitter debt. The goal is to trigger a Tesla stock "death spiral."

The video discusses the consequences of online harassment and speech. The speaker criticizes Twitter for suppressing accurate COVID information, including the views of expert doctors. They share their personal experience as a long-hauler and the negative effects they believe were caused by the vaccine. The speaker questions Twitter's authority to censor medical opinions and accuses the platform of silencing voices. They also inquire if the US government pressured Twitter to moderate or censor certain tweets. The speaker expresses gratitude towards Matt Taibi and Elon Musk for exposing Twitter's alleged connection to the FBI.

It's frustrating dealing with content takedowns, especially for the community. I've been on Instagram since I was 13, starting my kink account at 15. I began with APDL content, gradually exploring pup play, which I'm currently into. It's disheartening to lose that connection because I've made so many amazing friends over the years and have tons of pictures.

The speaker decided to delete their Instagram account because they were spending too much time scrolling and obsessing over what others thought of them. They announced they were taking a break from social media. The press misinterpreted this as a mental breakdown, portraying the speaker as not being the "perfect happy go lucky kid" and implying they were having a nervous breakdown. This misrepresentation was upsetting to the speaker, as it negatively portrayed people seeking help.

Someone from a PR agency told the speaker that a government agency wanted to hire them to create a PR campaign against her, framing her as "anti-vaccine." The PR person turned down the job but wanted to warn her, saying the agency would come after her hard, even though she states she has always said she is not anti-vaccine. The speaker claims she wasn't scared initially because she felt she had faith and truth on her side. However, she says things became difficult when she started losing jobs, impacting her ability to provide for her son's therapy as a single mother. She says she relied on writing her books and persevering despite the attempts to "cancel" her. She notes that her son is now 22, and she is still present and active.

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.

I don't have an issue with questioning the safety of the new vaccine, but spreading misinformation is ridiculous. I saw a post on adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine on Instagram, but it turned out to be from a fake account with no followers or posts. When I pointed this out on Facebook, my comment was blocked. This is the challenge we face. Translation: I don't have a problem with questioning the safety of the new vaccine, but spreading misinformation is ridiculous. I saw a post on adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine on Instagram, but it turned out to be from a fake account with no followers or posts. When I pointed this out on Facebook, my comment was blocked. This is the challenge we face.

Pup Nikon states they have been exhausted and burnt out from social media due to personal issues and work as a photographer and laser show designer. They are considering joining the military. Pup Nikon's Instagram account was spammed with suspension warnings, possibly from a hater or Instagram's automated system. They have been on Instagram since age 13 and started their kink account at 15, evolving from ABDO to pup play. They miss the friends and photos they've accumulated. Pup Nikon is unsure whether to return to their old account (Pupunknowns), stick with the new one (Pup Nikon), turn the old account into a backup, or delete it entirely and start fresh. They seek recommendations on which account to use and express excitement about returning to the platform.

An individual from a PR agency told the speaker that a government agency approached them to create a campaign against her, labeling her "anti-vaccine." The PR agent turned down the job but warned the speaker about the impending narrative. The speaker was initially skeptical, as she claims she had always stated she was not anti-vaccine. Despite this, the speaker says that she experienced the beginning of "cancel culture" when jobs were taken away from her, which was difficult as a single mother trying to pay for her son's therapies. She relied on writing books and persevering, and despite attempts to cancel her, she is still present and her son is now 22 years old.

Hey everyone, it's Troll Slayer Mama, also known as shove your backs up your mask, 34. My previous account got suspended, like all my others, but you can follow me here on Troll Slayer Mama on Twitter, for now at least. Who knows when that might change?

Hey, friends. Steve Baldwin here to share important tech info about Elon Musk and Twitter. It's not a glitch; everything Twitter does is intentional. There are no glitches, just actions influenced by Elon Musk, the government, and other forces.

The speaker describes spending an entire year posting on X, finally breaking through by reaching 20,000 followers and being admitted to the creator program last night. Then the account was suspended abruptly. He expresses appreciation to followers for the twelve hours of fame and notes that this is the account now, but he probably won’t be posting much anymore, feeling demoralized. He mentions his name, Ethan Levins, in relation to his Instagram handle, but does not elaborate beyond that.

The algorithm manipulates views and followers to control narratives, promote movements, and sway votes. It pushes certain artists, products, and influencers to influence perceptions. If your content goes against the system, keep going - real support will come.

The speaker states they cared about the server, the network, and their family first, including their partner, Shay. The speaker accuses someone of staying up all night to slander them and acting like a psychopath while pretending to be a traditional wife and mother. The speaker claims this person was going after their girlfriend, who hates them. The speaker then says they will show viewers that they still have their Twitter account when the video was made.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sudden, unexplained YouTube ban impacting Speaker 1’s entire account, including the ability to watch YouTube, with no violations or warnings on the channel and no explanation given. The channel was deleted for not following community standard guidelines, which Speaker 1 notes is surprising given the channel’s focus on personal experiences, scientific conversations, and lack of strikes. Speaker 1 explains the last interview they did was with Jim Sikala, and mentions frequent contact from Harvard University’s neurology department seeking real experiences to place boxes in homes for real scientific data collection, not ufology. He says the interview with Sikala was “the last thing we did” about a week or two prior, and asserts there was no explanation for the termination and ban from the app. Speaker 2 frames this as part of a broader pattern of suppression since they started filming a documentary and releasing it on November 5. They describe their YouTube presence as minimal in size and influence, yet they’ve observed a lack of visibility across Twitter and other platforms, with posts “invisible” or unseen by audiences. They had expected the Rogan mention to boost visibility, given some discussions around the documentary and agent disclosure, but instead experienced continued suppression. Speaker 0 notes that both their channels and individual accounts are not reaching audiences despite heavy cross-promotion, and they question how to generate interest or reach when content remains unseen. They reference a Rogan appearance last night that mentioned Speaker 1, and then the next day Speaker 1’s channel is wiped out, prompting speculation about a possible connection. Speaker 1 acknowledges that several thousand people think the ban is connected to the Rogan mention and Doctor Michael Masters’ discussions, though he emphasizes he does not monetize his channel and aims to help others share experiences. Speaker 1 emphasizes the documentary’s impact on people who feel unable to discuss certain topics in everyday society, noting that the content has helped many to rediscover suppressed ideas and experiences. He describes the emotional and personal toll of the work, including sleep issues and a period of sleepwalking, which he attributes to stress and exposure, and recounts a recent incident of seeing a face in a kitchen window, which turned out to be himself in a mirror-like reflection. Speaker 2 summarizes the sense of ongoing coincidence and timing that feels significant, comparing it to the sense of the phenomenon experienced prior to their first filming. They acknowledge receiving messages from viewers inspired by the documentary, thanking them for the work.

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.

A nurse injured by the COVID vaccine has spent the last four years building a community of vaccine-injured people. She asks others to join her in taking down "these criminals." Another individual states they will fight for the cause for life, even if they have to do so from a wheelchair, as they currently cannot stand for more than a minute without convulsions. They want to help people of their generation, who they believe are heavily influenced by the media, understand that things can go wrong. They feel obligated to speak up and will never back down.

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."

The speaker praises the doctor for being a reliable source of information during the pandemic. They mention that the doctor discussed the origins of the virus, the effectiveness of vaccines and masks, and always provided objective and science-based information. The speaker then brings up a conspiracy theory about the doctor getting someone kicked off Twitter for questioning the COVID vaccine. The doctor chooses not to comment directly on the accusation and expresses concerns about social media platforms not being able to police threats made against individuals. The speaker clarifies that their own experience with COVID and vaccines has been positive. The doctor reiterates their concern about threats being made against people's safety on social media platforms.

The discussion centers on COVID-19 misinformation and the roles of public figures and disinformation spreaders. Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions. Speaker 1 says he cannot confirm involvement but asserts Fauci is not an innocent bystander and is aware of his actions; he doesn’t have the information to determine the extent of Fauci’s involvement. Speaker 2 identifies Dr. Dirashid Bhattar as one of the top spreaders of COVID-19 disinformation on social media, citing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, noting Bhattar once had more than a million followers. The dialogue includes several false or debunked claims attributed to Bhattar. Speaker 1 states that “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” a claim Speaker 2 labels as not true, along with Bhattar’s assertion that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID vaccine,” and his claim that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025.” Bhattar’s broader theory is that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 responds affirmatively but says he has no idea who is behind it. Speaker 2 warns that praising or repeating Bhattar’s views is dangerous, noting Bhattar’s use of false or twisted information to distrust vaccines. The conversation touches on whether the COVID vaccine works; Speaker 1 says the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps,” but “not preventing death.” Speaker 0 challenges this, and Speaker 2 counters that Bhattar doubles down on vaccines being more dangerous than the virus, even in the face of data. A numerical claim is raised: “6,340,000,000 doses of this vaccine have been given,” with implications if the claim were true. Speaker 1 says vaccines are designed with ingredients published and that each vaccine appears to be different, though he concedes not being a vaccine developer. Speaker 2 notes Bhattar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram for disinformation but remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site. Speaker 0 references a September 5 retweet of a photo suggesting AstraZeneca was made in 2018; Speaker 1 acknowledges it could have been fake and questions why Bhattar would share such content. A combined exchange discusses questioning agencies and the consequences of misinformation, with Speaker 0 accusing Bhattar of contributing to a mass misinformation problem and Speaker 1 acknowledging the existence of a large follower base that has received false information. The dialogue closes with a mention of a statement from North Carolina’s Board of Medicine prior to COVID, implying regulatory context or action.

The speaker considered deleting their account due to a barrage of transphobic messages, which they were unprepared for, especially given their initial expectation of low viewership. Ultimately, they decided against it. They stated they will not allow negativity to undermine their accomplishments and years of hard work, nor let others control their life. They believe they are superior to those sending hateful messages.

The transcript centers on a heated discussion about COVID-19 misinformation and prominent figures blamed by conspiracy theories. Key points include: - Speaker 0 questions whether doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions; Speaker 1 responds that Fauci is not an innocent bystander but is not privy to the full extent of his involvement. The exchange emphasizes uncertainty about Fauci’s exact role. - Speaker 2 describes Dirashad Bhattar (Dr. Bhattar) as one of the top spreaders of disinformation about COVID-19, noting he once had more than a million followers and is cited by the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Bhattar is accused of spreading dangerous misinformation on COVID-19 across social media. - The dialogue presents multiple disinformation claims attributed to Bhattar: - “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID.” - “Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID nineteen vaccine.” - A post claiming most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025. - The overarching conspiracy theory that COVID was a planned operation, politically motivated as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. - The participants debate whether the pandemic was planned. Speaker 0 asks if the pandemic was planned; Speaker 1 says yes but admits uncertainty about who organized it and why. Speaker 1 suspects research suggesting population reduction or minimized reproduction rates. - Qatar (Bhattar) is criticized for comparing COVID and the vaccine to World War II and for labeling Fauci as Adolf Hitler; Speaker 1 rejects comparing Fauci to Hitler and references Nazis who killed six million Jews. - The conversation includes a warning from Speaker 3: “Lies cost lives in a pandemic. If you're encouraging people not to vaccinate, you will cause people to lose their lives.” - The dialogue describes Bhattar’s messaging as using “false twisted information and unproven conspiracies” and notes his removal from Facebook and Instagram, while he remains active on Twitter, Telegram, and his own website. - Vaccine effectiveness is debated. Speaker 1 asserts the vaccine is “very effective at what it was designed for perhaps, but it's not preventing death,” and claims “the delta variant is all vaccine injured,” citing CDC data as evidence. Speaker 2 counters that vaccines remained ninety percent effective in preventing hospitalization and death and asserts Bhattar asserts the vaccine is the danger. - A claim about a doctored AstraZeneca packaging photo from September 5 is discussed: Bhattar retweeted a photo that appeared to indicate the vaccine was made in 2018; Speaker 1 labels the image as fake, while Speaker 0 questions why he would share it. The discussion highlights accountability for misinformation and the impact of misrepresentations on followers (Bhattar reportedly had 1,200,000 followers at one point). - The dialogue ends with a remark from Speaker 0 calling Bhattar’s views “crazy,” and a brief, abrupt note that, before COVID, North Carolina’s board of medicine reprimanded (incomplete thought).

The release of the "Twitter files" had serious consequences for both the speaker and junior employees at Twitter. They faced doxxing, threats to their families, and had to deal with online harassment. The speaker had to sell their home after their address was published. Another speaker criticized Twitter for censoring COVID information, including the opinions of well-educated doctors. They shared personal health issues they believe were caused by the vaccine. The speaker questioned Twitter's authority to censor medical experts and accused the platform of being influenced by the US government. The video ends with gratitude towards Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk for exposing Twitter's alleged connection to the FBI.

The speaker discusses prior claims about moles and toxins. They mention being fact-checked in 2024 after saying moles are an accumulation of toxins in the skin region. The speaker notes that the fact-checkers told them this is not true, yet recounts continuing to claim that moles involve toxin buildup and are removable, which they say led to additional scrutiny of their page. The speaker recalls advising people that applying a small amount of organic coconut oil or castor oil with a little pearl directly to a mole would cause the mole to disintegrate and break apart. They state that fact-checkers challenged the idea that toxins accumulate in the skin and cause mole formation, implying that removing moles by topical treatment should not be suggested because it would undermine the professional market for petroleum-based products. According to the speaker, the motivation behind the fact-checks is to prevent spreading the notion that moles are toxin-related and easily removable, as such a belief could reduce demand for professional services and products. They claim that toxins accumulate in skin areas, including spots on the skin that are not exposed to the sun, and that these moles stay to retain the toxins. The speaker reiterates that applying pearl with coconut oil or castor oil to the mole will cause it to break apart, reinforcing the toxin-build-up theory as the mechanism behind mole formation. The speaker emphasizes the frequency of fact-checking their content and shares a personal anecdote about discovering that the fact-checker who evaluated their page had won an Emmy Award for fact-checking. They remark on the prevalence of the fact-checking efforts and describe the situation as comical, framing it as ongoing opposition or “nonsense” faced by their content and audience. The overall narrative centers on defending the claim that moles are related to toxin buildup and can be removed with specific natural remedies, while contrasting this with the fact-checking and the asserted professional or commercial incentives behind suppressing such claims.