reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker discusses competitive middleware, which refers to the growing censorship industry. They explain that the censorship industry is structured through government institutions, private sector companies, civil society organizations, and news media and fact-checking institutions. The speaker breaks down the different categories of government censorship activities, such as funding, pressure, coordination, outsourcing, and laundering. They also mention the role of tech platforms and corporate social responsibility arms in the private sector. Additionally, they discuss the involvement of universities, NGOs, non-profits, foundations, and activist researchers in civil society. The speaker highlights the role of news media and fact-checking institutions in pressuring the private sector to censor certain content. They mention recent changes, including legal victories and the Missouri v Biden case, which has led to the proposed restructuring of the censorship industry through competitive middleware. The speaker explains that competitive middleware involves intermediating censorship through firms like NewsGuard, which fix news ratings to ban alternative news. They mention the plan to build up middleware institutions and the concept of capacity building. The speaker also discusses the upcoming EU disinformation regulations and how entities like NewsGuard are positioning themselves as disinformation compliance services to comply with these regulations. They compare this to the compliance industry for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

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.

NewsGuard and GARM pose a serious threat to free speech in the US. NewsGuard's board includes former CIA and NSA heads, working to control the news narrative. They blacklisted 650 news sites during COVID-19 for questioning the origin of the virus. GARM aims to cut funding to alternative news sources spreading misinformation. These organizations collaborate with ad agencies like Publicis Group, which receive taxpayer subsidies. Congress can take action to remove funding from these agencies.

In September, headlines falsely labeled me a sex criminal. This wasn't isolated; it was the culmination of a multi-year campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. Governments and intelligence agencies, including those of the US and UK, were involved. My critiques, though not pro-Russia, challenged Western narratives and my ability to persuade a broad audience was perceived as a threat. Organizations like Coda Story, linked to the UK government and CIA, and others funded by Moderna, tracked and suppressed my content. This censorship extended to social media, orchestrated by my own government, without trial or named accusers. The attempt to discredit independent media is a broader effort to control information and suppress dissent, effectively creating a one-party system. This experience, though personally painful, especially during my son's heart surgery, has only solidified my commitment to truth-telling and challenging authoritarianism. The fight for free speech is ongoing and I believe a global awakening is on the horizon.

Google has introduced a new global censorship tool called "fact check tools" to eliminate dissent on selected topics. Partners such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization, along with numerous others, are involved. Google's algorithms aim to delete websites critical of various subjects, including COVID-19 statistics, the World Bank, and global warming statistics. This is seen as Google's attempt to control the internet before access becomes restricted worldwide. The goal is to establish a single point of view, supporting a global government under the United Nations. Google will have the authority to decide which news is accessible, aligning with the upcoming social credit score system.

In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a years-long campaign to silence my dissenting views on major geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. My critiques, while not pro-Russia, questioned Western involvement. This led to accusations of being a Chinese propagandist by a US government-linked organization. Subsequently, the UK government, connected to the CIA, pressured social media to censor and demonetize me. This coordinated attack, involving organizations funded by Big Pharma and government, reveals the suppression of independent media and dissenting voices. The open contest of ideas is a sham, with governments actively working to silence opposition, even using taxpayer money against their own citizens. My experience exposes the fragility of free speech and the lengths to which powerful entities will go to maintain control. The fight continues, and the stakes are high.

In a congressional hearing, Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi revealed details about the Cyber Threats Intelligence League (CTIL), a powerful organization involved in censoring free speech. They presented evidence of a censorship industrial complex, involving government agencies, contractors, and big tech platforms, that censors ordinary Americans and elected officials for holding disfavored views. The CTIL files exposed US and UK military contractors working to censor and conduct psychological operations against the American people. They also discussed the violation of the First Amendment by government agencies and the need for defunding and dismantling these organizations involved in censorship. The hearing highlighted the dangers of government-sponsored censorship and the importance of protecting free speech.

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.

Freedom of speech is under attack, with a censorship industrial complex choking expression and debate. Federal and state governments fund censorship technology, directing big tech to censor speech. Academic institutions research disinformation for the censorship regime, and think tanks groom journalists to promote pro-censorship propaganda. Nonprofit censorship groups produce blacklists to favor left-wing media and silence dissenting voices. The Federalist has been targeted for critiquing corporate media coverage of Black Lives Matter riots, which caused over $2 billion in damages. A House report documented Stanford's collusion with government entities to censor information, including political reporting. 70% of Americans distrust corporate media. Blacklists from groups like NewsGuard rate left-wing outlets higher than those challenging orthodoxies, impacting advertising revenue. The Federalist exposed the Russia collusion hoax and media lies against Justice Kavanaugh, even suing the State Department for promoting censorship tools. Despite facing censorship, The Federalist will continue reporting the truth.

I spent years researching and watching lengthy videos to understand the influence of organizations like the Atlantic Council, which is heavily funded by U.S. government agencies, including the CIA and the Pentagon. This group trains journalists to identify and censor disinformation, particularly targeting populist narratives like those of Donald Trump and Brexit. They promote a framework called the "four D's" of disinformation: dismiss, distort, distract, and dismay. This framework allows them to label factually true information as disinformation if it undermines government narratives. The Atlantic Council's connections to high-ranking CIA officials and its role in shaping media narratives illustrate a troubling intersection of government and media, aiming to control public discourse and influence political outcomes.

NewsGuard, an organization that claims to guard against false narratives online, is actually a tool used by the national security state to control information and suppress alternative news sources. It was created in 2017 by a defense diplomacy intelligence axis to combat the rise of alternative news after the 2016 election. NewsGuard operates similarly to a system implemented in Eastern European countries, where news sources are categorized as blacklisted, whitelisted, or gray listed based on their alignment with NATO propaganda. NewsGuard's board of advisors includes former heads of NATO, CIA, NSA, DHS, and the State Department's Global Engagement Center. They have blacklisted thousands of web pages, including those questioning COVID origins or spreading conspiracy theories. This reveals a concerning level of censorship by the national security establishment.

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.

Censorship is rising globally, with governments aiming to control the entire Internet, not just within their borders. Recent victories for free speech advocates include the rejection of censorship legislation in Ireland and Australia, and the resignation of a top EU censor. However, the EU's censorship framework remains intact, with organizations designated to identify and demand censorship from major tech companies. Despite these challenges, public opposition to government censorship is significant, with many recognizing it as a threat to free speech. Efforts to combat this censorship complex will require ongoing dedication, as influential figures continue to push for stricter controls. The focus on misinformation as a global risk by organizations like the World Economic Forum and the UN highlights the urgency of this issue.

I discovered a clip from a nine-hour conference I watched in 2019, which reveals how the Atlantic Council, funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, trains journalists from major media outlets to censor information that undermines government narratives. This organization, known as NATO's think tank, has seven former CIA directors on its board and receives annual funding from various military and intelligence agencies. They promote a framework called the "four D's" of disinformation: dismiss, distort, distract, and dismay. This training aims to suppress populist sentiments, particularly during the 2020 election cycle, by labeling factually true information as disinformation if it contradicts preferred narratives. The Atlantic Council's collaboration with Burisma, signed just before Trump's inauguration, highlights the intertwining of corporate interests and government actions in shaping public discourse.

Disinformation is profitable, so we must trace the money. A significant portion of advertising revenue supports harmful content. We need to collaborate with the global advertising industry to redirect ad dollars. This involves creating exclusion and inclusion lists to prioritize funding for accurate and relevant news and information. We must challenge the global advertising industry worldwide to focus its resources on disseminating truthful and beneficial information.

The speaker claims that there is a conspiracy to label their content as misinformation. The goal is to make the content less accessible through algorithms and deprive them of ad revenue. This is framed as an indirect method of shutting down their business. The speaker argues that while this approach may seem less dramatic than direct censorship, it is effectively the same thing. The speaker suggests that people underestimate the severity of this indirect method.

Google has introduced a new global censorship tool called "fact check tools" to eliminate dissent on selected topics. Their partners include the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and many others listed on their website. Google's algorithms aim to delete websites criticizing various topics such as COVID-19 statistics, the World Bank, the FBI's crime statistics, and more. The goal is to establish one point of view, supporting a global government under the United Nations. Google has the power to control what news is read or blocked on the Internet, which aligns with the upcoming social credit score system.

Unheard attended a parliamentary hearing on the future of news and discussed the issue of disinformation. They discovered a global system of censorship that blocks certain websites from receiving ads. Unheard was placed on the Global Disinformation Index's exclusion list, despite publishing reputable content. The GDI defines disinformation as adversarial narratives, which allows them to target publications they disagree with. The GDI is funded by various governments and organizations, including the UK government. They determine what is considered disinformation and have listed conservative-leaning websites as the most dangerous. Legal action has been taken against the GDI for infringing on First Amendment rights. The problem of censorship extends beyond the GDI, and it is important for individuals and companies to be aware of where their ad dollars are going.

In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a multi-year campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. Governments and intelligence agencies, including the US and UK, orchestrated attacks, falsely labeling me a Chinese propagandist and coordinating censorship efforts through organizations like Coda Story, which has ties to the CIA. My critiques, informed by academic sources, presented alternative perspectives on mainstream narratives, exposing the homogenized views of powerful institutions. This coordinated attack, which even involved Moderna tracking my content, reveals the lengths to which powerful interests go to suppress dissent. The accusations were made anonymously, and my own government contacted online providers to demonetize and censor me. This shows that independent media is a threat to those in power, and the open contest of ideas is a sham. The ongoing attacks are terrifying but also reveal the struggle for control over information.

What's new about misinformation is that narrative trumps the truth, and stories against the narrative get killed. Organizations like Media Matters for America tell reporters what to report, or they will smear them as haters and go after their advertisers. Before being fired, the speaker received instructions on framing stories, like the one about the Algerian boxer in the Olympics, advising to portray anyone against the boxer as part of the hateful right and providing specific language to use. NewsGuard ranks reporters and news outlets, influencing where advertisers spend money. Deviating from their approved narrative results in a lower grade, similar to a credit rating, and fewer advertisers. They rank and rate stories, providing direction on the "right" course.

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.

Two years ago, we were labeled as bought-off journalists for questioning digital censorship. I was shocked to see my party seemingly endorse censorship. John Kerry even lamented that the First Amendment hinders the government's ability to control information and build consensus, essentially complaining that people choose their own news sources. Building consensus isn't the media's job; it's our job to make governing hard, and many of our allies have already embraced draconian speech laws. The EU's Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law in a Western democracy. USAID is funding organizations that promote unified messaging and discourage diverse opinions, spending millions of dollars to transform the free press into a consensus machine. You've taken taxpayer money to tell people they're wrong about what they can see, you sold us out.

Disinformation is profitable, so we must trace the money. A significant portion of the funding for harmful content comes from the global advertising industry. We need to collaborate with this industry to redirect ad dollars. This can involve creating exclusion and inclusion lists to target funding towards accurate and reliable news and information. We must challenge the global advertising industry worldwide to prioritize funding for truthful and relevant content.