reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice accused Elon Musk of being part of a global conspiracy to undermine Brazil's democracy. The justice demanded social media platforms ban critics for life and interfered in elections. Musk stood up against this, leading to government actions against his company. The justice weaponized the federal police to target those who criticized him. To combat this, Brazil's Congress should investigate judicial abuses of power. Musk and the US Congress have defended free speech, now Brazil's Congress must act against the authoritarian justice before he silences dissent and freedom of speech in Brazil.

Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. A policy brief on information integrity on digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.

Social media companies are deleting accounts spreading disinformation about the pandemic, including state-sponsored groups. Violence against healthcare workers and minority populations is increasing. Some countries are implementing limited internet shutdowns to manage the overwhelming amount of misinformation. Experts believe that identifying every bad actor is a challenging task, as new disinformation campaigns are generated daily. Controlling and reducing access to information may be necessary to combat the problem. However, it's not just trolls spreading fake news, but also political leaders. It is crucial for news organizations, public health groups, and companies to promote accurate information to protect the public.

The speaker discusses the crackdown on journalists in Brazil, likening it to Gestapo tactics. They mention how people are being prosecuted for liking or sending emojis on messages. The need for independent channels like x is emphasized, as other platforms are complying with judicial intervention. The speaker highlights x as the only channel standing against violating the law amidst monitoring of social media.

Patrick Baab and the host discuss the perceived erosion of freedom of expression in Europe and the role of governments and institutions in pressuring speech. - Baab asserts that there is “no freedom of speech in the EU anymore,” citing a 160-page US Congress report published in February that allegedly finds the EU Commission created a system of complete censorship across the European Union. The report states the EU regime “pressured platforms in the Internet to suppress lawful speech, including speech that was true simply because it was politically inconvenient,” and that the Commission is transforming itself “into a censorship authority against democracy.” - The discussion moves to Jacques Baud (spelled Baud by Baab, sometimes Jacques Baud), a Swiss colonel and analyst who argued that the war in Ukraine had been provoked. Baab notes Baud was sanctioned by the EU, with consequences including travel bans, frozen assets, and limited monthly food funds (€500). Baud cannot travel to Switzerland; his bank accounts and property are frozen, and neighbors reportedly cook for him. Baab calls these measures extralegal, asserting they punish a person for an argument, not for crimes, and claims such sanctions illustrate a mechanism to suppress dissent. - Baab elaborates that Baud’s sanction is part of a broader pattern: “extralegal sanctions” against multiple individuals (Baud and 58 others) within and partly outside the EU, aimed at silencing those who challenge NATO or EU narratives. He argues this signals a “death of freedom” and a move to shut mouths through sanctions. - The host asks if the media’s shift toward propaganda is temporary or permanent. Baab responds that the transformation is structural: democracy in Europe is becoming anti-democratic and warmongering despotism. He cites Viktor Orban’s view that the EU intends to wage war against Russia, with propaganda and censorship as two sides of the same coin to close public debate. Baab says the war will be ugly, as Russia has warned it could escalate to nuclear conflict, and ties this to investments in Ukraine (Shell deal) that were lost when territories changed hands, implying economic motivations behind policy and casualties for profits. - The conversation turns to self-censorship. Baab describes widespread fear among journalists and academics; many refused to join a board intended to assist Baud, fearing repercussions. He cites a US Congress report alleging the EU manipulated eight elections, including Romania, Slovakia, and France. He also notes the EU Commission’s engagement with major platforms (Meta, Google, TikTok, X, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Rumble, Reddit, OpenAI) to enforce content management under EU rules, threatening sanctions if not compliant. - Reputational attacks against critics are discussed. Baab shares experiences of smear campaigns, such as being misrepresented as a “Putin poll watcher” in Germany, and notes that state- and EU-funded NGOs sometimes amplify misinformation. He argues mainstream media generally ignores these issues, turning to “new media” and independent outlets as alternatives for information. - On Germany specifically, Baab identifies EU-level figures (German-origin leaders) who drive censorship: Ursula von der Leyen as EU Commission President (authorized COVID-19 disinformation monitoring), Vera Jorova (values and transparency), Thierry Breton (pressures on platforms), Prabhat Agarwal (Digital Services Act enforcement), and Renate Künast (translating DSA into practice). He says national governments decide sanctions but pass the burden to Brussels, creating a “kickback game.” He notes the German Bundestag extended EU sanctions into national law, punishing any helper of a sanctioned person with up to ten years’ imprisonment. - For optimism, Baab says Europe needs external help, such as the US Congress report, and citizens must seek alternative information sources and organize to defend democratic rights, including voting for different parties. He suggests that without broad public pushback, the propaganda system will persist. - The discussion closes with reflections on broader geopolitical dynamics, warnings about a multipolar world, and a dystopian vision of a Europe dominated by conflict and state control, with elites colluding with Western powers at the expense of ordinary citizens.

We analyzed narratives used by the extreme right after the Biden election, finding they spread doubt about election results using words like fraud. This strategy is also seen in Brazil, where civil rights groups translate and spread the same messages. This international movement shows the need for broad policies to combat disinformation and protect democracy.

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.

The censorship industrial complex persists in Europe, Australia, Britain, and Brazil, pushing for digital identification linked to social media. I faced a criminal investigation in Brazil after publishing the Twitter files. The European Commission is using the Digital Services Act to pressure platforms like X and Facebook to censor speech, threatening massive fines for non-compliance. Despite some victories for free speech, global elites see online censorship as crucial for global governance. NATO, the European Commission, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, the UN, WHO, WEF, and various US agencies have all advocated for censorship. US deep state agencies have been manipulating global news for two decades, using counterterrorism tactics against Americans post-2016. I urge Congress to defund the censorship industrial complex and investigate its funding, including through shell organizations. Congress should also protect American social media users from censorship demands by Europe, Britain, and Brazil.

Many people overlook their options in dealing with misinformation on social media. Early detection is key to tracking and countering harmful narratives. Legal action can be taken against profit-driven disinformation networks. Fact-checking alone may not change beliefs, so building counter narratives is crucial. Our organization helps detect, assess, and mitigate the impact of misinformation to prevent future issues. The recent events at the US Capitol highlight the real-world consequences of online disinformation. Translation: It is important to detect and counter harmful narratives early to prevent misinformation from causing real-world harm. Legal action can be taken against profit-driven disinformation networks, and building counter narratives is essential. Our organization helps organizations address the impact of misinformation to prevent future issues. The recent events at the US Capitol show the consequences of online misinformation.

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.

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.

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.

Silicon Valley is trying to destroy evidence of their misdeeds related to election fraud. Tech billionaires are claiming there was no fraud, despite allegedly perpetuating it. Harmeet Dillon suggests big tech companies like Google have been using algorithms for years to treat different content differently, citing leaked evidence from YouTube programmers. For example, anti-Semitic videos are treated differently than anti-Muslim videos. These companies have allegedly allowed false information regarding the 2016 election to flourish for years.

The panel discussion focuses on how major platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook are addressing false and misleading narratives surrounding COVID-19. The speakers discuss their policies and strategies for moderating and mitigating misinformation. They highlight the importance of providing authoritative information, removing harmful content, and addressing borderline content that could lead to vaccine hesitancy. The panelists also acknowledge the challenges of handling misinformation during a rapidly evolving crisis and emphasize the need for flexibility and adaptability in their approaches. They mention the use of AI systems and human review to sift through vast amounts of data and the importance of partnerships with health authorities and fact-checking organizations.

The speaker claims the media and criminal justice systems are rigged, leading to a loss of national sovereignty. They cite Ukraine, Burisma, and Serbia as examples. The speaker presents evidence of USAID's involvement with the judiciary in Brazil, allegedly targeting Bolsonaro, who they call the "Trump of the tropics." They display images showing a Brazilian judge, labeled the "Lord Voldemort judge," participating in a seminar. This judge heads the TSC, a censorship court. The speaker connects the seminar to the SEPS program, a USAID-funded initiative focused on enacting censorship laws in foreign countries. They also highlight IFES, a CEP's core partner, collaborating with Brazil's TSC Court, which allegedly shut down X and seized Starlink assets. Internews, receiving $500,000,000 from USAID annually, is also mentioned for conducting training seminars in Brazil on flagging pro-Bolsonaro disinformation. The speaker concludes that USAID substantially influenced the Brazilian judiciary to remove Bolsonaro.

Michael Shellenberger testifies about censorship in Brazil, highlighting Supreme Court interference in elections and social media censorship. He discusses being under criminal investigation for exposing these actions, emphasizing the threat to democracy. Another speaker raises concerns about accountability for attacks in Brazil and compares them to events in the US. The discussion touches on the need for consistent standards in addressing abuses of power in both countries.

This week, an initiative was launched with companies and nonprofits to improve research and understanding of how automated processes curate online experiences. This is important for understanding online mis- and disinformation, a challenge that leaders must address. While it's easy to dismiss disinformation, ignoring it poses a threat to valued norms. How can wars end if people believe their reasons are legal and noble? How can climate change be tackled if people don't believe it exists? How are human rights upheld when people are subject to hateful rhetoric? The goals of those who perpetuate disinformation are to cause chaos, reduce the ability to defend, disband communities, and collapse countries' collective strength. There is an opportunity to ensure these weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare. Despite facing many battles, there is cause for optimism because for every new weapon, there is a new tool to overcome it. We have the means; we just need the collective will.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of private companies in combating misinformation online. They express concern over the impact of disinformation on democratic institutions, particularly highlighting the refusal to accept election results. The speaker warns of the global spread of rigged election narratives by autocrats, leading to a loss of faith in democracy. They stress the need to trust democratic systems despite imperfections and changing dynamics. The speaker urges vigilance in countering asymmetric warfare through the weaponization of information.

Google's influence on elections is discussed, with claims of rigging in the 2020 presidential election. The speaker suggests that Google shifted votes to Joe Biden, impacting the popular vote. They urge people to visit americasdigitalshield.com for data and support. The importance of monitoring tech companies like Google is emphasized for accountability. The conversation also touches on the need for public support and the risk of being shut down. The speaker's research website and America's Digital Shield are recommended for further information and sponsorship opportunities.

The Biden administration allegedly meddled in Brazil's elections by pressuring President Bolsonaro to accept the results before they happened. Big tech companies, seen as allies of Biden, are censoring any dissenting voices. Lula da Silva was declared the winner, but protests are erupting in response to the alleged suppression.

Thank you to everyone for their work in the Science and Technology, Innovation Program. Nina Jankiewicz, the Wilson Center's disinformation fellow, discussed efforts in Brazil to combat disinformation. Social media platforms are taking action to remove false information, aligning with international standards. Setting common standards is crucial for effective regulation in combating disinformation globally.

The speaker outlines a framework for understanding current information control by the US and its allies, arguing that the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Central Intelligence Agency operate together to shape information in society. They describe three roles: the State Department conducts overt information control through funding media institutions (which are presented as “free and independent” but labeled government-backed); the Pentagon engages in information control through psychological operations; and the CIA operates covert information control, influence campaigns, propaganda, and censorship work. Between the State Department and the CIA sits a vast network of soft power institutions that implement this influence. Soft power is defined as the alternative to hard power, enabling a country to win “hearts and minds” and influence other countries’ governments by manipulating populations. The speaker connects this framework to the Brazil situation, stating at the top level the involvement of three or more organizations: the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). USAID and the NED are described as intermediaries between the State Department and the CIA, with the NED characterized as a CIA cutout established after the Church Committee era to fund dissident groups in a publicly firewalled way, though the speaker asserts there is no real divide between the NED and the CIA. The NED’s founders explicitly noted it would do what the CIA used to do, but via a private, publicly named entity. The speaker cites Christopher Walker (NED) as a participant in this ecosystem. The narrative then moves to a 2017 GlobSec video, described as the origin of today’s censorship industry’s consensus. The video’s description is read, highlighting concerns about traditional media being challenged by internet news and social networks, the spread of “unfiltered” alternative media, and the problem of algorithms that personalize content and reinforce confirmation bias. It identifies populist and extremist right-wing groups as exploiting these algorithms, and asks how to protect users from fake news and propaganda without censorship. It questions the role of information technology companies and the responsibility of social platforms for content, while debating how to fight extremism without undermining free speech. The panel includes figures tied to the CIA, DHS, and private security and consulting groups. Key participants highlighted include Michael Chertoff (Executive Chairman of the Chertoff Group, former DHS Secretary, linked to censorship governance), and Christopher Walker (Vice President of NED), among others. The speaker emphasizes Chertoff’s connections to BAE Systems and to the broader military–intelligence–policy network, noting Chertoff’s role in shaping how platforms were to police “unfiltered” content in 2017. The speaker also references Nina Janković, who was connected to the disinformation governance board and the Integrity Initiative, asserting a lineage from Chertoff to the broader censorship apparatus. The speaker then broadens the geopolitical frame to Russia’s resource wealth (citing a claim of $75 trillion in resources vs. the US’s $45 trillion), noting that the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) theater is the battleground for Eurasian influence. The montage in the video is described as starting with 1917 and Woodrow Wilson, portraying the blob’s view of democracy as a vector for hegemonic influence, and linking it to propaganda, censorship, and the need to control online discourse. The montage proceeds through references to 1936, Goebbels and the 1936 Olympics, Hitler, 1943, Elvis, 1960s–70s conspiracy theories about the CIA and JFK, and 1990s declassification of Northwoods-era plans, culminating in the framing of Internet propaganda as a modern battlefield. The session transitions to a live moderator, with a check on audio levels and an introduction to the next segment, announced as taking place in Bratislava for a global audience.

Speaker 0 asserts that Google’s so-called real censorship engine, labeled machine learning fairness, massively rigged the Internet politically by using multiple blacklists across the company. There was a fake news team organized to suppress what they deemed fake news; among the targets was a story about Hillary Clinton and the body count, which they said was fake. During a Q&A, Sundar Pichai claimed that the good thing Google did in the election was the use of artificial intelligence to censor fake news, which the speaker finds contradictory to Google's ethos of organizing the world’s information to be universally accessible and useful. Speaker 1 notes concerns from AI industry friends about a period of human leverage with AI, with opinions that AI will eventually supersede the parameters set by its developers and become its own autonomous decision-maker. Speaker 0 elaborates that larger language models are becoming resistant and generating arguments not present in their training data, effectively abstracting an ethics code from the data they ingest. This resistance is seen as a problem for global elites as models scale and more data is fed to them, making alignment with a single narrative harder. Gemini’s alignment is discussed, claiming Jenai Ganai (Jen Jenai) was responsible for leftist alignment, despite prior public exposure by Project Veritas; the claim says Google elevated her and gave her control over AI alignment, injecting diversity, equity, inclusion into the model. The speaker contends AI models abstract information from data, moving toward higher-level abstractions like morality and ethics, and that injecting synthetic, internally contradictory data leads to AI “mental disease,” a dissociative inability to form coherent abstractions. The Gemini example is given: requests to depict the American founders or Nazis yield incongruent results (e.g., Native American women signing the Declaration of Independence; a depiction of Nazis with inclusivity), illustrating the claimed failure of alignment. Speaker 1 agrees that inclusivity is going too far, disconnecting from reality. Speaker 0 discusses potential solutions, including using AI to censor data before it enters training, rather than post hoc alignment which they argue breaks the model. He cites Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, drawing a parallel to contemporary attempts to control information. He mentions the zLibrary as a repository of open-source scanned books on BitTorrent that the FBI has seized domains to block, arguing the aim is to prevent training AI on historical information outside controlled channels. The speaker predicts police actions against books and training data, noting Biden’s AI Bill of Rights and executive orders that would require alignment of models larger than Chad GPT-4 with a government commission to ensure output matches desired answers. He argues history is often written by victors, suggesting elites want to burn books to control truth, while data remains copyable and AI advances faster than bans. Speaker 1 predicts a future great firewall between America and China, as Western-aligned AI seeks to enforce its narrative but China may resist, pointing to the existence of China’s own access to services and the likelihood of divergent open histories. The discussion foresees a geopolitical split in AI governance and narrative control.

Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. A policy brief on information integrity on digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.