reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that the government's "combating misinformation bill" signifies the end of free speech in Australia, granting the government excessive control over the exchange of ideas. The bill compels digital platforms to censor content that may cause "serious harm," including content impacting public health or preventive measures. The speaker recalls the government censoring 4,000 social media posts during the pandemic, many of which later proved accurate. They cite concerns from legal counsel about digital platforms lacking expertise to identify misinformation, and from the Human Rights Commission that the bill doesn't balance censorship and free expression. The speaker claims the government and health bureaucrats spread misinformation during the pandemic by falsely claiming mRNA injections were safe and effective, that mandates would stop transmission, and that the injections would prevent illness. They criticize the exclusion of mainstream media from the bill, alleging media suppression of information, such as vested interests of health experts, deregistration of dissenting doctors, vaccine contract details, excess deaths, adverse reaction reports, and risks to the young versus the elderly. The speaker urges Australians to oppose the bill.

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.

"Today's misinformation is always tomorrow's truth. It's always the government who wants to censor people who are critical of the government." "Europe is trying to police everyone and shake down American tech companies, which is exactly what the digital markets act looked like. That is what's at stake here, and that is not how our First Amendment works." "Everything our government here in The United States told us about COVID turned out to be false. If you criticize any of the things they initially told you, you had to be censored." "When Elon bought Twitter, now it's a place where the first amendment and free speech are right where they need to be." "The spillover effect it can have on, American content being seen by European users." "The answer to stupid speech, bad speech, and wrong speech is more speech." "the hallmark of Western culture is free expression." "There were 12,183 arrests for offensive post online." "Global Alliance for Responsible Media." "Disinformation governance board."

Welcome to Cybersecurity 101. Today, we're discussing countering disinformation on social media. With the abundance of fake and dishonest information online, it's important to know how to identify it. In recent times, there has been a surge in false information about COVID-19. While some misinformation stems from ignorance, there are deliberate attempts to mislead, harm, or manipulate. This intentional spread of false information is known as disinformation. It can undermine trust in public health, leading to lower vaccine acceptance and adherence to safety protocols. Additionally, disinformation can divide communities, resulting in increased infections and deaths. In this lesson, we'll explore how social media is used to influence and provide strategies to identify and counter disinformation.

Prominent Democrats, including John Kerry, Tim Wallace, and Hillary, are allegedly saying that the First Amendment is a bad thing. These top-level Democrats view the First Amendment as an obstacle. The frequent use of the word "disinformation" is an indication that the speaker believes these individuals are creating disinformation. Those trying to suppress freedom of speech are considered the "bad guys." It is astonishing that this is happening in America in 2024.

In this session, the speaker discusses how disinformation is not just about lies, but also about distorting and manipulating the truth. They introduce the 4 D's model: dismiss, distort, distract, and dismay. The audience is given cards to identify these tactics in quotes from different organizations. They discuss examples of dismiss, distort, and distract, and someone adds a fifth D, divide. The session focuses on the various ways people twist stories and attack those who present uncomfortable evidence.

Misinformation is a problem now handed to the younger generation, as making information available didn't guarantee people wanting correct information. Online harassment, as experienced by the speaker's daughter and her friends, highlighted this issue. Context matters, as people seek correct information for medical advice but may prioritize shared views in their communities. The boundaries of free speech need to be defined, especially regarding inciting violence or discouraging vaccinations. Rules are needed, but with billions of online activities, AI might be necessary to enforce them, as delayed action can result in irreversible harm.

The speaker believes that the situation surrounding the vaccine has been a disaster and suggests that there was a military-grade propaganda campaign to promote it. They claim that the government provided over $1 billion to mainstream media to push the vaccine narrative and censor opposing views. According to the speaker, this violated informed consent for the entire country and the world.

Speaker 0 describes the spread of misinformation that claimed vaccines are “killing weapons” and that COVID-19 is a human-made crisis, calling it “baseless information.” This misinformation influenced a woman who lived with her husband and two children. The husband, who had been absorbed in online content since around May last year, began to show changes in behavior by August. Speaker 2 adds that he collected things he had researched on A4 paper and distributed them around the middle school near his daughter’s school; on a different day, the husband distributed a flyer as well. Speaker 1 mentions that people who had received vaccines were said to have an average lifespan of about two years, an assertion tied to the flyers. When the wife or others protested the distribution, the husband insisted that he was doing the right thing, and he reacted with anger, making it hard for them to understand him. The couple’s children were affected as well: when Speaker 0 left the house, the children wore masks, and there were statements suggesting that wearing masks was unnecessary or that those who did not wear masks should do so. The wife’s group was told that COVID-19 was merely a cold or flu, and this rejection of masks and other measures extended to handwashing and disinfection, with the husband arguing about not needing to adhere to these practices and claiming that certain friends drank together despite the precautions. Speaker 0 notes that the husband repeatedly asserted, “Corona is just a cold,” while he and his companions refused to wash hands or disinfect and continued to socialize aggressively. The family, constantly confronting the fear that they could be infected, tried several times to stop him, but those efforts only led to more fights. Ultimately, for the sake of the family’s safety, the wife separated from her husband in February of this year, resulting in a rift within the family. Speaker 1 emphasizes that this is rooted in baseless information, including the belief that documents or papers published in journals supported anti-vaccine arguments, which people used to promote demagogic claims. Speaker 1 adds that reading such literature reveals that many sources lack scientific soundness, and sometimes people believe them blindly without evaluating the literature. The speakers express a sense of regret and a need to confront the emotional impact of these events, but they refrain from evaluating the truth of the claims, simply presenting the sequence of actions and the resulting family fracture caused by misinformation.

Misinformation is a complex issue. Some false information may not be harmful, so censoring someone for being wrong can be questionable. However, during the early stages of the COVID pandemic, there were health implications and limited time to verify scientific assumptions. Unfortunately, the establishment wavered on facts and requested censorship of information that turned out to be debatable or true. This undermines trust.

The speaker claims there was a CIA effort to take over content moderation at Twitter through the Alethea Group, which aimed to create a new content moderation system, described as censorship. Internal memos revealed this plan, which faced some resistance within Twitter but was on track to be implemented. The speaker believes that if Elon Musk hadn't bought Twitter, this plan would have succeeded. The speaker equates the effort to totalitarianism, characterized by the control of the information environment through censorship and propaganda. The goal is to prevent certain information from getting out and to promote other information.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Propaganda is a story or message that influences your thoughts and actions. Most of the information we receive contains subliminal messaging, aiming to control our minds. They want us to believe lies that can harm and even kill us. For example, they promote a medicine as safe when it's actually dangerous and has caused many deaths. This is a serious issue, and that's why I'm here today. I will always fight against propaganda and stand for the truth, even when they come after us. Thank you.

Prominent Democrats, including John Kerry, Tim Wallace, and Hillary, are allegedly saying that the First Amendment is a bad thing. These top-level Democrats view the First Amendment as an obstacle. The frequent use of the word "disinformation" is an indication that the speaker believes these individuals are creating disinformation. Those trying to suppress freedom of speech are considered the "bad guys." It is astonishing that this is happening in America in 2024.

The speaker discusses the committee's requirement for clearer communication of adverse side effects of mRNA injections to prevent the spread of disinformation. They claim that the COVID pandemic was a test to see how far they could go in enforcing compliance on free individuals. The goal, according to the speaker, is to transform free and democratic societies into totalitarian ones, stripping people of their fundamental rights. They urge people to stop giving their governments the benefit of the doubt and to resist and rebel against the globalitarian elite. The speaker promises to use their voice to break the psychological abuse and expose the lies of the criminals behind it.

There is a lack of agreement on what constitutes disinformation, making it difficult to establish policies and guardrails. The speaker argues that the US government is the biggest propagator of disinformation, citing examples like the Steele dossier, Pentagon Papers, and weapons of mass destruction. They believe that debates and discussions should resolve disputes, rather than relying on the government as an arbiter. The speaker opposes government involvement in speech and questions the need for them to determine the truth, as they believe the government itself disseminates disinformation.

The speakers discuss whether the government should interfere with false claims, such as the idea that COVID vaccines contain microchips. Speaker 1 believes that the government should counter such claims with truthful information, building trust with the public. They argue that suppressing speech, even if it's false, undermines the ability to combat misinformation effectively. Speaker 2 points out that the government already has institutions like the CDC to address these issues. They mention that labeling false information on social media platforms is seen as censorship. The debate also touches on the consequences of censorship in the medical sector, where informed consent may be compromised.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and friendly crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

37 hours after President Biden's inauguration, the White House opened a portal for the FBI to access social media posts, later including the CIA, DHS, IRS, and SAISA. SAISA is allegedly responsible for censoring information the government doesn't want Americans to hear. These agencies, including the CDC, could alter posts, slow walk content, and shadow ban users. The speaker claims their Instagram account with almost 1,000,000 followers was removed for "misinformation," despite no factually incorrect posts. Facebook reportedly pushed back, acknowledging the information was true, leading to the invention of the term "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government—which was then categorized alongside disinformation and misinformation. Emails allegedly show Facebook employees privately criticizing the White House, recognizing their actions as illegal but driven by immense pressure. Facebook and other media companies have deals with government and intelligence agencies, and the White House threatened their Section 230 immunity if they didn't comply.

Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress discussion of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. The speaker claims to have sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy, and the speaker was their first target. Facebook was allegedly told to remove the speaker from Instagram, which they did, despite the speaker's claim that all vaccine-related posts were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications. According to the speaker, Facebook told the White House that the information was not misinformation, but the White House called it "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government. The speaker asserts that numerous individuals, including O.J. Botticello, Marty Makary, Dr. Oz, and Vinay Prasad, were also censored.

The speaker criticizes the media and their desire for censorship. They argue that the left defines "disinformation" as any information that conflicts with their ideology. They mention Francis Fukuyama, a respected historian, who suggests rethinking the First Amendment. The speaker claims that those in power frame censorship as combating bad ideas, but it is really about maintaining control. They argue that power is the only principle that matters to those in the hierarchy.

37 hours after President Biden's inauguration, the White House opened a portal for the FBI to access social media posts. The FBI then invited the CIA, DHS, IRS, and SAISA, which is allegedly in charge of censoring information the government doesn't want Americans to hear. These agencies, including the CDC, were given access to social media sites to change posts, slow walk content, and shadow ban posts. The speaker's Instagram account, with almost 1,000,000 followers, was removed for alleged misinformation, but the speaker claims that they never posted anything factually erroneous. The speaker claims that Facebook pushed back, stating that the posts were not misinformation. The White House then allegedly invented the term "malinformation," defined as factually true information inconvenient for the government. Facebook employees allegedly privately described the White House as cynical and terrible, believing their actions were illegal but were under pressure due to deals with the government and threats to Section 230 immunity.

Information laundering occurs when lies are made to sound credible by being stated in Congress or a mainstream outlet. Examples of information laundering include Rudy Giuliani sharing bad intel from Ukraine and TikTok influencers claiming COVID can cause pain. Disinformation should not be supported with wallets, voices, or votes.

The speaker argues that there was no informed consent regarding the COVID vaccine, as the government and pharmaceutical companies knew it wasn't a traditional vaccine. They hid potential adverse reactions and lack of evidence on transmission prevention. Despite good intentions, people were misled into taking it.

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.