reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Walking away from fact-checking and ignoring discrimination related to TPS contradicts American values. Telling the truth is essential, especially for those in media. It’s concerning that false information can be widely disseminated without accountability. The idea that a billionaire can influence media to avoid fact-checking is troubling, especially when millions consume this content. It undermines the integrity of our discourse. Mister President, do you regret your decision to run for reelection?

I don't trust his explanation for silencing the truth with fact-checking. He deflected blame, claiming he faced pressure from the Biden administration. Now we're expected to overlook that? I also question why there was no inquiry into his ties to DARPA and its LifeLog project, which aimed to create a comprehensive digital record of individuals for surveillance. Interestingly, LifeLog was discontinued just before Facebook emerged. Why isn't there more scrutiny on Facebook and its true nature? It's concerning that these figures may not have our best interests at heart and are merely manipulating the narrative.

In the past, medical advice on eggs, aspirin, and other issues has been corrected without retracting articles. However, during the COVID pandemic, poorly researched articles were used to attack individuals like us. Now, as COVID cases decrease, these articles are being withdrawn from public view. If evidence is being buried, shouldn't that raise a red flag for you?

The speakers discuss the prevalence of biased and false news on social media, with some media outlets publishing these stories without fact-checking. They emphasize that this is extremely dangerous to our democracy, repeating this statement multiple times.

When tech CEOs like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg discuss free speech, it often appears they prioritize their own views over the broader community's. Recent changes at Meta seem to cater to conservative users, potentially alienating liberals. This trend mirrors what's happening on Musk's platform, X, which has shifted towards a right-wing stance, promoting free speech that aligns with Musk and Trump. The implications of these changes at Meta, particularly regarding misinformation on platforms like Facebook and Instagram, will be important to monitor moving forward.

The problem of fake news is not solved by a referee, but by participants helping each other point out what is fake and true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech. Critical thinking matters more than ever, given that lies seem to be getting very popular.

Media Matters attempted to boycott X (formerly known as Twitter) by claiming that the platform was serving up Neo-Nazi content tied to big brands. However, when the speaker and their team created fake accounts to follow the same pro-Nazi accounts, they were unable to replicate Media Matters' results. They couldn't get any ads served to them, even after following three times more pro-Nazi accounts. The speaker reached out to Media Matters for an explanation but received no response. This suggests that there may be more to the situation than meets the eye.

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

Concerns are rising about a tech industrial complex that threatens our country. Americans face overwhelming misinformation, leading to power abuse. The free press is deteriorating, and social media is neglecting fact-checking. Lies are overshadowing the truth for profit and power. It's crucial to hold social platforms accountable to safeguard our children, families, and democracy from these abuses.

Jessica Headley and Ryan Wolf state: “Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities. The El Paso, Las Cruces communities. Eastern Iowa communities. Mid Michigan communities.” They express pride in the journalism they produce: “We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that CBS four news produces.” They then describe their concern: “But we are concerned about the trouble that training their responsible one-sided news stories plaguing our country.” They warn about the spread of biased and false information: “The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.” They add that “More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first.” The message repeats the core worry: “The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.” The refrain is reiterated multiple times: “This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”

Speaker 0: Zuckerberg claims to be an old-fashioned liberal who dislikes censorship, but why doesn't Facebook take a similar stand on free speech? It seems rooted in American political tradition. Speaker 1: Zuckerberg reportedly spent $400 million in the last election, primarily supporting Democrats. This raises questions about his impartiality.

The discussion centers on allegations that Erica Kirk’s backstory has been exposed as a lie. The speakers claim that, while she lived in New York, there are indications she did date and drink, contrasting with statements that she avoided dating and did not drink. One concrete example cited is a photo of Erica Fronsbee with a glass of champagne, captioned “it’s Wednesday, so treat yourself to little champagne,” suggesting she did enjoy alcohol. Further evidence presented includes a 2017 image posted by internet sleuths showing Erica Fronsbee with Cabot Phillips, captioned, “yes. we’re that couple who gets painting lessons together.” The image is interpreted as indicating they were more than just a one-off date, implying they were an actual couple. The speakers note that Cabot Phillips was at one point Charlie Kirk’s producer and is now a senior editor at The Daily Wire. They add that Phillips recently spoke about “how to lead like Charlie,” and that the speaker believes Phillips “is not from this world of media,” describing the situation as “incestuity.” The narrative is broadened to claim that Erica was dating before Charlie, which is described as normal, but there is also mention of her being engaged, perhaps even married. Luna Bear Studios is cited with a post from 03/16/2015, praising Erica Fransvi and JT Massey, stating, “Erica Fransvi and JT Massey, you both are amazing humans, and I love shooting you so much laughter and love. It was perfection.” This is used to argue that her entire image is built on something not true. A recurring question posed is why Erica would lie about being a conservative woman, with the assertion that such deception would be visible online, concluding that “the Internet is undefeated.” The speakers imply that Erica’s public persona as a conservative woman is inconsistent with the alleged past relationships and activities documented in the posts and photos. The overall claim is that there are contradictions between her claimed identity and her dating and social media history, challenging the authenticity of her presented backstory.

A Congressman questions a witness about bias at NPR, citing an article by a former NPR editor who worked there for 25 years. The article stated that 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans were in editorial positions at NPR. The witness said she doesn't track those numbers but finds them concerning if accurate. The Congressman then references the editor's claims that NPR heavily covered the Trump-Russia story, interviewing Adam Schiff 25 times, but coverage faded after the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion. The witness couldn't confirm this, as she wasn't at NPR at the time. The Congressman also brought up the Hunter Biden laptop story, where an NPR editor dismissed it. The witness stated that current editorial leadership believes that was a mistake. Finally, the Congressman noted that the former editor said NPR declared the lab leak theory debunked. The Congressman concludes that NPR was "0 for 3" on major stories, but the witness maintains that NPR is nonpartisan and not politically biased.

Why do conservatives believe fact-checking is biased against them? If your information consistently gets flagged as false, consider what you're sharing. What content were conservatives sharing on platforms like Meta that resulted in frequent fact-checks? Were they disseminating misinformation? Why the eagerness to share potentially false information? Furthermore, why is there a push, particularly among Republicans, to eliminate fact-checking altogether? What exactly are they attempting to circulate, and what's the underlying reason for resisting factual verification?

TikTok may stop censoring conservative views due to the new administration, but it's uncertain if this includes stopping the suppression of evidence against mainstream narratives. Recently, a report revealed that the FBI had 26 confidential sources during the January 6 events, contradicting claims of no undercover involvement. Despite Trump's calls for peace on that day being deleted by Twitter, evidence suggests a mix of peaceful and violent actions occurred. The media's portrayal of January 6 compared to BLM protests raises questions about bias. Censorship on platforms restricts open dialogue, but freedom of speech must prevail. It's essential to think critically, engage in discussions, and seek evidence to form informed opinions.

I'm definitely not buying Mark Zuckerberg's supposed MAGA conversion. After I posted a Twitter thread linking a group he donated to with organizations that are actively sabotaging Trump's agenda, Meta ran to the New York Times to smear me. Their defense was basically, "We gave money, but don't know what they did with it." Digging deeper, I found over a dozen organizations funded by Zuckerberg that are suing Trump and organizing protests against his policies. Zuckerberg hasn't publicly stated any intention to withdraw funds from these groups. He issued a letter apologizing for their impact on the 2020 election, but provided no evidence. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative website, which previously listed thousands of grants to left-wing organizations, now only shows grants from 2024 onward, conveniently erasing the record of election interference.

NPR and PBS heads testified before Congress this week, facing accusations of liberal bias. The question is whether the government should continue funding public broadcasters. Republicans have long sought to eliminate PBS. The speaker believes NPR is far left and that government subsidies are no longer necessary. These outlets became popular when political polarization was lower. Now that Republicans and Democrats are at odds, such organizations are no longer viable as public entities and should be private.

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.

A Congressman questions a witness about bias at NPR, citing an article by a former NPR editor who worked there for 25 years. The article stated that 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans were in editorial positions at NPR's DC office. The witness said she doesn't track those numbers but finds them concerning if accurate. The Congressman references the editor's claim that NPR "hitched its wagon" to Adam Schiff on the Trump-Russia story, interviewing him 25 times, and that Russiagate faded from programming after the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion. The witness could not confirm this. The Congressman also mentions the Hunter Biden laptop story, where an NPR editor dismissed it as a distraction. The witness stated that current editorial leadership believes that was a mistake. Regarding the COVID origin story, the Congressman claims NPR declared the lab leak theory debunked, while most people now believe it caused the virus. The witness maintains that NPR is nonpartisan and not politically biased.

The speaker questions the credibility of fact checkers, citing Facebook's suspension of its partnership with RMIT FactLab. They highlight the director's open support for a yes vote in an upcoming referendum, which raises concerns about impartiality. The speaker also raises concerns about potential foreign influence on the Fact Check Partnership, pointing out that the International Fact Checking Network received grants from foreign organizations. They argue that fact checking is being used as a tool for censorship and criticize fact checkers for removing a meme about masks during COVID, despite evidence supporting its claims. The speaker calls for the government to abandon its censorship efforts and prioritize freedom of thought and expression.

- 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.

The Twitter files reveal that the federal government, including intelligence agencies like the FBI, used Twitter to censor Americans' speech. Twitter was closely connected to the FBI before Elon Musk took over. Documents show that Twitter engaged in information sharing with multiple intelligence agencies. The FBI pressured Twitter to censor election-related tweets in 2020 and 2022. Twitter executives restricted accounts and censored speech that went against the preferred narrative. This should concern every member of Congress and American citizen because it goes against the principle of free speech. Government and media fact checkers often make mistakes, so relying on them as arbiters of truth is not reliable. Government should not suppress important debates in public discourse.

Meta software engineer Matthew Fowler and data scientist Michael Zourab stated that Meta investigates and censors conservative posts. According to Zourab, fact checkers at Meta are liberal-coded, and most posts labeled as false are shared by conservatives, disproportionately affecting them. He cited the Hunter Biden laptop story as an example where Meta reduced the dissemination of the post on Facebook after the FBI warned them about Russian involvement. Engineer Clayman Jayapov revealed that right-wing people on Meta are either censored or flagged as disinformation. One individual stated that Meta has the right to suppress anything, while another said that they can censor anyone because it's a private company.