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.

A year ago, the speaker discovered the Twitter files, which revealed evidence of suppression on both sides of the political spectrum. They found monitoring of groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and hashtags like healthcare for all. The speaker believes that censorship programs expand in all directions and pose a threat to free speech. They argue that the government and private agencies have taken it upon themselves to decide what is safe for the public to see, while exempting themselves from the dangers of speech. The speaker questions who gets to decide what is considered hateful or harmful. They highlight that these anti-disinformation programs are controlled by a small group of affluent individuals, creating a power imbalance. The speaker concludes by urging the defunding of these programs to protect everyone's rights.

As a journalist who has covered world leaders, mass murderers, and war zones, the speaker says they have been targeted and falsely accused for almost a decade. They believe the media is in a crisis, facing an age of information warfare where propaganda is the entire battlefield, aided by advanced technology. The speaker contends that journalists betrayed free press principles by attacking one of their own for interviewing the Russian president, and that media companies and journalism schools have failed. Non-profit organizations are allegedly masquerading as non-partisan media watchdogs, acting as political propagandists who crush dissent and free speech. This "cancel culture" is a death sentence enabled by information dominance. The speaker claims that these non-profits are part of a censorship network including government agencies, using deception to mask their actions with goals like preventing misinformation and hate speech. Companies like Facebook, Instagram, and Google have monopoly power, controlling what billions see and hear. The speaker draws a parallel to apartheid South Africa, emphasizing the importance of the First Amendment and warning that the lights of freedom are going out, requiring action to relight them.

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.

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 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 defining characteristic of the United States is freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, this fundamental right is rapidly eroding due to censorship disguised as combating disinformation and malinformation. This censorship, directed by the US government, is not limited to the private sector. Mike Benz, an expert on this issue, explains how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors manipulate this. Internet freedom, initially used for supporting dissident groups globally, has become a tool for censorship since 2014. NATO now views controlling media as crucial for political influence, targeting even domestic groups. This shift accelerated after the 2016 election, with Russiagate providing cover for domestic censorship. The 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic saw massive censorship, with government agencies and private entities working together to suppress dissenting voices. This system uses AI-powered tools to identify and remove content deemed harmful to "democratic institutions," effectively creating military rule disguised as democracy. The fight to preserve free speech is now centered on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), which are facing immense pressure from both governmental and international entities.

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.

Unheard attended a parliamentary hearing on the future of news and discussed the issue of disinformation. They discovered a worldwide system of censorship that blocks certain websites from receiving ad revenue. Unheard was placed on the Global Disinformation Index's exclusion list, despite publishing well-known writers and interviewing influential figures. The GDI defines disinformation as narratives that are adversarial, even if factually accurate. The GDI is a government-funded organization that receives money from various sources. Unheard argues that this type of censorship is dangerous and stifles important discussions. They urge individuals and companies to be aware of where their ad dollars are going and to support independent media.

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.

Foreign governments are using acts like the Digital Services Act to censor information globally, pressuring companies to take down content and threatening fines if they don't comply. We've requested communications between the EU, UK, and Brazil with these companies to see what pressure has been applied. We're sending letters to the UK, EU, and Brazilian Supreme Court, putting them on notice that we're monitoring their actions. It's one thing to censor their own citizens, but impacting the First Amendment rights of Americans is a problem, especially when companies are pressured with fines. We saw this when the Biden administration pressured companies to censor, which they later regretted. Free speech is essential, and we must protect it for Americans, especially against foreign interference.

This hearing examines the Department of Homeland Security's role in censoring American voices through supposedly independent organizations. While protecting election infrastructure from foreign disinformation was the initial goal, it expanded to include countering domestic misinformation. The government created NGOs, like the Election Integrity Project, to do what it couldn't do directly. CISA acted as a switchboard to flag and notify social media platforms of misinformation, resulting in millions of tweets categorized as such. The same tools were used to censor COVID-19 narratives, some of which were later proven true. Concerns arise about DHS overreaching its jurisdiction and expanding censorship to various topics. The hearing questions the failure of leadership within DHS and the potential threat to civil liberties.

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.

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.

Competitive middleware refers to censorship liaisons that are growing in size and strength and will be the future of the censorship industry. The whole of society censorship industry is structured around government, private sector, civil society, and news media/fact-checking institutions. Government institutions engage in censorship funding, pressure, coordination, outsourcing, and laundering. The private sector includes tech platforms and the CSR wings of private companies. Civil society consists of universities, NGOs, nonprofits, foundations, and activist researchers. News media and fact-checking arms pressure the private sector to censor. Changes, including the House turning Republican, Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, and legal victories, forced a restructuring of the censorship industry. The Stanford Cyber Working Group anticipated a loss in the Missouri v Biden case and proposed competitive middleware, ballooning up the civil society bridge between government and the private sector. Middleware firms like NewsGuard affix news ratings that enable mass banning and throttling of alternative news. NewsGuard has an all-star cast of the national security state on its board. The EU will soon require compliance with disinformation rules, and NewsGuard is billing itself as a disinformation compliance service.

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.

The speaker claims censorship and disinformation efforts are at another level, referencing a Department of Homeland Security initiative to destroy reputations, deplatform, and de-bank individuals. They assert global control of social media platforms is at risk from governments and the "deep state," jeopardizing free speech and democracy worldwide, specifically mentioning Australia, Brazil, Ireland, Scotland, Europe, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Britain, Canada, and the United States. They criticize Orwellian justifications like "countering disinformation" used to mask censorship, advocating for fighting misinformation with accurate information, not government-backed censorship. The speaker alleges Facebook was "captured" years ago and expresses concern over government-favored fact-checkers dictating censorship. They state there is a push for total control over platforms like X. The speaker also criticizes "media literacy" programs as brainwashing that replaces critical thinking with obedience and authoritarianism. They cite a military contractor handbook advocating information warfare tactics, including those used in the Arab Spring, now being deployed domestically. They suggest these efforts aim to program people before stories emerge, suppressing dissenting voices and undermining Western enlightenment values.

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.

The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), funded by the US government, has been using taxpayer dollars to secretly censor conservative and heterodox opinions online. They conducted a social science censorship experiment using 23 million tweets labeled as misinformation from the 2020 election. EIP developed four censorship techniques, resulting in a 63% censorship rate without users knowing they were being censored. These techniques included covert follower loss for medium to large-sized influencers. The study, published in Nature Magazine, aimed to find ways to censor people without causing outrage or blowback for tech platforms. EIP received $1 million in taxpayer funding from the Biden administration.