reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues against the claim that the Great Barrington Declaration was censored, stating that it was only removed from one YouTube video. They emphasize that being blacklisted on Twitter does not equate to censorship, as the platform can curate its content. They challenge the speaker's standing and argue that there is no evidence to support the idea that lockdowns were unnecessary. The speaker also criticizes the notion that governments and platforms should have a detente on speech regulation, asserting that the government has suppressed regular people's speech through its influence over platforms. They advocate for companies having the freedom to decide what speech is allowed on their platforms while upholding the First Amendment.

Many young people rely solely on TikTok for news. A video about border issues went viral on social media but was abruptly shut down. This censorship stifles free speech and prevents people from seeing the truth. It's concerning how we are silencing each other instead of upholding our right to free speech. This normalization of censorship is alarming.

Speaker 0 argues that it is difficult to hear, but it is time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it. They state that we need to control the platforms—specifically all social platforms—and to stack rank the authenticity of every person who expresses themselves online. They say we should take control over what people are saying based on that ranking. The government should check all the social media.

Old Twitter was heavily influenced by the government, which violated the First Amendment. The reason for this amendment is to protect freedom of speech, as many immigrants came from places where it was restricted. If we allow censorship, it won't be long before we ourselves are censored. That's why the First Amendment exists.

The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a relatively unknown agency, has been involved in a censorship operation. However, a court order froze its powers of mass censorship, with the 5th Circuit ruling that CISA likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to censor free speech. This case is part of a larger issue tied to the Missouri v Biden case, where attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, arguing that government contact with social media companies for content removal violates the First Amendment. The court rulings have brought attention to the government's involvement in censorship through private companies. The battle over censorship is likely to continue to the Supreme Court.

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.

Justice Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment significantly hinders the government during critical times. She questions what actions the government can take, suggesting that simply posting its own speech, like "kids, this is not safe, don't do it," is insufficient. Some argue the government has a duty to protect citizens, but Justice Jackson appears to suggest this duty cannot involve encouraging or pressuring platforms to remove harmful information. She expresses worry about the First Amendment's impact in threatening circumstances, questioning whether the government can interact with the source of these problems.

The 5th Circuit Court ruled that the Biden administration, FBI, and CDC violated the first amendment rights of Americans by pressuring tech companies to censor free speech during the pandemic. The White House allegedly coerced social media platforms through intimidating messages and threats. This resulted in the removal of posts critical of the Biden administration or unfavorable to the White House. The ruling may have significant implications for the 2024 election if Democrats lose control of the narrative. The White House is currently assessing its options.

CIA and FBI whistleblowers warn of compromised assessments on COVID origins, violating COVID Origins Act. FBI whistleblower reveals analysts changed position on lab origin for financial incentives. Government colluding with social media to censor speech, violating First Amendment. Facebook complied with White House demands to suppress vaccine side effect information. This collusion poses a threat to free speech and accountability. Public must be aware of the dangers of censorship and the need to protect free speech rights.

The government's involvement in big tech censorship is a severe violation of civil liberties. The Biden administration's actions led to a decrease in social media impressions. Cases like Genghis v. HHS and Missouri v. Biden highlight government influence on tech companies to silence certain voices. Experts like Bhattacharya and Kulldorff faced censorship for their views on lockdowns. The government's constant direction to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to control information is concerning.

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

The 5th Circuit Court ruled that the Biden administration, FBI, and CDC violated the First Amendment rights of Americans by pressuring tech companies to censor free speech during the pandemic. The White House coerced social media platforms through intimidating messages and threats. This ruling could affect the 2024 election if Democrats lose control of the narrative. The White House is currently reviewing its options.

The speaker asks about the communication between government agencies and social media platforms. They mention email traffic and censorship activities that were not public. The speaker also discusses how the CDC had a partnership with Twitter, allowing them privileged access to flag misinformation. They mention the Virality Project, which is a collaboration between private entities and the government to surveil and censor social media. The speaker shares their personal experience of having their tweets censored and expresses concern about the violation of the First Amendment. They mention a court case that supports the idea that liking, commenting, and sharing are protected by the First Amendment. The speaker finds it appalling that the executive branch violated the First Amendment.

The 5th Circuit Court ruled that the government cannot pressure social media companies to censor content protected by the First Amendment. The court upheld the injunction against the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, and FBI, stating that they violated First Amendment rights. This ruling serves as a warning to all government agencies that engaging in such behavior may lead to discovery and potential criminal liabilities. It will have a chilling effect on the government's censorship regime. The case is considered unprecedented in terms of the scale and influence of the censorship. The Supreme Court may be involved if the government appeals. The goal is to set a precedent against government overreach and censorship.

The conversation centers on the core idea that democracy hinges on freedom of speech, but with in-depth debate about what that freedom should look like in the context of large platforms. Speaker 0 references the bedrock of democracy and notes a new policy posted yesterday titled “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach,” highlighting the tension between protecting speech and avoiding amplification of harmful or extremist content. Speaker 1, Jonathan, clarifies his stance: “I don't think it's about censorship. I believe in freedom of speech. The ADL is a civil rights organization, but I don't believe in freedom of reach.” He argues that Twitter, like other publishers, should have the ability to choose whom it privileges and who it doesn’t privilege, suggesting there should be a “lunatic fringe” kept on the fringe rather than algorithmically amplified. He lists examples such as “Russian propagandists, alt right crazy people, you know, violent anti Zionists,” implying that such content should not be algorithmically promoted. Speaker 2 asks whether this should be achieved through a free marketplace of ideas managed by private companies or through legal intervention in Washington, prompting Speaker 1 to respond that social media platforms should “simply obey the same rules of business that other publishers do.” Speaker 3 reframes the issue: it is not about limiting anyone's free speech but about giving people the largest platform in history to reach a third of the planet, noting that “Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.” He asserts that there will always be racist, misogynist, anti-Semites, and child abusers, but argues that the goal is not to give bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims. Speaker 4 shifts to the ADL’s operational stance, noting that they opened a center in Silicon Valley in 2017 and that the person running it will be “the next Facebook executive.” They describe having software engineers and data scientists monitoring online content and working with major platforms—Google, YouTube, Meta, Twitter, Reddit, Steam, Amazon, and others from Apple to Zoom. The speaker emphasizes ongoing collaboration with Twitter “since it was founded,” describing continuity with both “the old regime” and “the new regime,” and adds a provocative aside: “Like, I'm talking to Ivon. Bad guy.” The overall thread is a sustained effort to monitor, engage with, and influence platform policies through cross-platform collaboration while advocating for restraint in amplifying harmful content.

Missouri filed a case against Biden, claiming that Facebook worked with the administration to censor protected speech. The courts found that Facebook allocated resources and human moderators to monitor COVID-19 vaccine posts and remove a parent's post about a school board meeting. However, they didn't prioritize addressing issues like multiple pedophile rings, claiming a lack of resources. This discrepancy is deemed unacceptable, as they had resources to censor free speech but not to protect children.

The Twitter files reveal significant government coordination with social media companies to suppress dissent, undermining First Amendment rights. During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett criticized journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, accusing them of promoting a biased narrative. Shellenberger responded, highlighting the emergence of a censorship industrial complex involving government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, which is using taxpayer funds to censor information under the guise of combating disinformation. He emphasized that this practice is illegal and a violation of free speech rights. Shellenberger called for dismantling this censorship system to protect democracy.