reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Social media's role in reporting incidents was discussed, with the claim that social media posts often do not depict the entire incident, presenting only one version of events. It was asserted that social media and mainstream media commentaries sometimes misrepresent circumstances, which complicates thorough investigation and law enforcement by distorting the reality of events. In response to a question about what was distorted, it was stated that social media irresponsibly shows one side of the equation, lacking factual context, leading to misinformation that investigators then have to manage.

In 2022, as Director of Information Security at The Intercept, the speaker wrote articles critical of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter, including his purging of leftist accounts and reinstatement of neo-Nazis and anti-vaxxers. Subsequently, Musk permanently suspended the speaker's account, then reinstated it after a poll, but demanded deletion of a tweet. Instead, the speaker quit Twitter for a year. The speaker now works with a collective that makes open-source security and privacy software, including Syd.social, an app to delete data from X and migrate tweets to Blue Sky. The speaker is also involved in Tesla Takedown, a nonviolent movement aiming to devalue Tesla stock and force Musk to sell shares to cover his Twitter debt. The goal is to trigger a Tesla stock "death spiral."

A social media account possibly linked to the shooter in 2019-2020 showed over 700 comments with anti-Semitic, anti-immigration, and violent political themes. The investigative team is verifying the account to confirm its connection to the shooter. Despite the shooter being deceased, the investigation continues urgently.

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

A person is unable to get a post taken down from X (formerly Twitter), even though it has millions of views and continues to gain more every hour. They claim that X will not remove the post if asked. They believe it shouldn't be solely up to the individual to address the issue, especially after the post has already gained significant traction. They suggest there should be a mechanism in place where they can send a cease and desist to X and have the content removed.

Mark Elias stopped posting on X. Brennan has lawyered up. John Kerry made his account private, and Peter Strzok deleted his entire X history. These actions suggest that these individuals feel the walls are closing in. Those who are truly innocent would not be taking these kinds of actions. It's important to declassify information to get the truth out. This information is irrefutable, undeniable, and is currently being reviewed by the Department of Justice to bring about accountability for those involved.

There's now more to the cover up story of Tom Alexandervich, Israel's cyber chief who was busted in a sting operation. New details say Sean King was silenced by X; in the middle of the night all posts about Tom Alexandervich were removed. They were removed because the Israeli government asked X to take them down, and X complied. Israel, the government agency that asked for X to remove the post, was the very agency Tom Alexandervich heads. Sean King's post alleges that in the middle of the night, tweets about Israeli Tom Alexandrovich—arrested in Las Vegas for sex crimes against children—were deleted, including every retweet and link to his articles. Based on verified reports, X voluntarily deleted the tweets under doxing policies likely promoted by Israel's cyber unit where Alexandervich worked. This lacks a public US legal mandate, effectively limiting scrutiny and indirectly protecting the accused from public exposure.

If social media platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok don't moderate and monitor content, we lose total control. This loss of control extends beyond social and psychological effects, leading to real harm.

The speaker is concerned about a post with 6,000,000 views that continues to gain 200,000 views per hour. They are unable to get the post removed. The speaker believes the responsibility for removing such content should not solely fall on the individual, especially after it has already gained significant traction. They claim that attempting to have X (formerly Twitter) remove the content is futile. The speaker suggests there should be a mechanism, such as sending a cease and desist to X, to facilitate content removal.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring, there is a loss of control, leading to social, psychological, and real-world harm.

There are allegations of mass doxing occurring on Community Notes, specifically targeting a conservative woman with children. The speaker blurred out names to prevent identification but claims this is a recurring issue. The concern is that Community Notes is allegedly being used to dox people simply because of differing views or in retaliation for being exposed for harassment. Two accounts, Enterprising Desert Raven and Resplendent Cedar Osprey, are allegedly linked to this activity. The speaker emphasizes the importance of privacy on X and expresses particular concern when children are involved, stating that doxing mothers by revealing their government-issued names publicly is unacceptable. The speaker says the goal is to protect children.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring, there is a loss of control, leading to social, psychological, and real-world harm.

Social media posts often present an incomplete or misrepresented version of events, hindering thorough investigations and law enforcement. This distortion of content, amplified by both social and mainstream media, complicates understanding the actual circumstances. Irresponsible social media practices frequently showcase only one perspective, lacking context and factual background. This leads to the rapid spread of misinformation, creating challenges for managing investigations and establishing an accurate account of events.

A person is unable to get a post taken down from X (formerly Twitter), even though it has millions of views and continues to gain more every hour. They claim that X will not remove the post if asked. They believe it shouldn't be solely up to the individual to address the issue, especially after the post has already gained significant traction. They suggest there should be a mechanism in place allowing them to send a cease and desist to X and have the content removed.

The speaker asserts that YouTube quietly deleted more than 700 videos documenting Israeli human rights violations, war crimes, and related abuses as part of an effort by the U.S. government to bury evidence of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. According to The Intercept, YouTube surreptitiously deleted these videos in early October by wiping the accounts that posted them from the site along with their channel archives. The affected accounts belonged to three prominent Palestinian human rights groups: Al Haq, Al Mezan, the Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. These three YouTube channels hosted hours of footage documenting and highlighting alleged Israeli government violations of international law in Gaza and the West Bank. The speaker emphasizes the importance of preserving this record to counter Hasbara and ensure documentation of war crimes for historical record, stating that there is a real and successful effort to wipe the Internet of these videos. The deleted content ranges from investigations, such as an analysis of the Israeli killing of American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, to testimonies of Palestinians tortured by Israeli forces, and documentaries like The Beach about children playing on a beach who were killed by an Israeli strike. The Intercept notes that the deletion affected the groups’ official channels, and not their alternate channels; videos reposted on other channels remain viewable. The speaker adds that while the official channels were deleted, other channels still host copies.

A social media account possibly linked to the shooter in 2019-2020 had over 700 comments with anti-Semitic, anti-immigration, and politically violent themes. The investigative team is verifying if the account belonged to the shooter. Despite the shooter being deceased, the investigation continues urgently.

This video addresses growing concerns about censorship on the X platform. It outlines the structure of the discussion, including the reasons for making the video, the context of current censorship issues, a detailed timeline of events, lingering concerns, and recommendations for the platform. The speaker expresses a deep appreciation for X's free speech policies, which have significantly impacted their life and career. They emphasize the importance of platform security for content creators and users, highlighting recent abrupt account suspensions and removals without clear explanations. The speaker urges X leadership to provide clarity and a transition period for users facing penalties, advocating for the preservation of trust in the platform. They conclude by encouraging viewers to support X Premium, despite the current uncertainties surrounding account eligibility.

If social media platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok don't moderate and monitor content, we lose total control. This loss of control extends beyond social and psychological effects to include real harm.

Speaker recounts a call from their youngest daughter, Zandra, telling them to delete all social media accounts because their name and image were out there associated with a shooting that had happened in The US. They hadn't heard of the shooting or Charlie Kirk. It was shock and horror to be named or implicated. They recognized the photo but couldn't think where it came from. It actually came from an old Twitter account. It's quite alarming that misinformation can get out there and spread so quickly, and nobody's fact checking. "You guys aren't. Nobody on social media seems to be saying, hey. Wait a minute here."

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring, there is a loss of control, leading to social, psychological, and real-world harm.

I used to be on Twitter, but it has become toxic and not worth my time. I'm trying to find an alternative to it. Social media needs a code of conduct to address issues like spreading false news and racism. The power of social media platforms should be reflected upon by society. The policy of the owner of X is also problematic. This is a problem that future society needs to address, focusing on ethics in social media.