TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Yahoo News discusses how leftist media is censoring voices by allowing certain political content to be posted while blocking others. The speaker demonstrates that typing "Trump 2024" triggers a warning about inappropriate content, but typing "Biden 2024" goes through without issue. This is presented as evidence of bias and silencing of conservative viewpoints. The speaker urges viewers to share this information. Translation: The video talks about how the media is censoring voices by allowing some political content while blocking others. Typing "Trump 2024" triggers a warning, but "Biden 2024" is allowed. This is shown as bias against conservative views. The speaker encourages sharing this information.

The Gateway Pundit, a website known for breaking news, investigative reporting, and opinion pieces, has been blocked by the United States House of Representatives for Congress members and staff. This action is deemed inappropriate, and efforts will be made to address the issue by contacting the House Administration Committee and the Speaker of the House if needed. Access to conservative news and analysis should not be censored by the House.

"New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD." "Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist." "Anti defamationally gets a green light." "Only for some. Yes. If you're reporting about the about the Arab Israeli conflict? Yes. You may not cite them." "You can't you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore on Wikipedia." "There is a a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia." "Daily Caller not allowed." "Life site news not allowed." "Sputnik, of course, not allowed." "TV Guide allowed." "The Uns review not allowed." "TV Guide totally cool." "Uns. V dare not allow." "Mister x is the name of his account." "This is obviously huge news."

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.

Every outlet is subjective, but they should all be allowed. Google's search engine now prioritizes authoritative sources over others, like showing mlb.com instead of a local Little League site. This approach limits access to diverse perspectives, favoring mainstream sources like the New York Times over specialized ones like the world socialist website. This hierarchical system goes against the idea of letting individuals make their own decisions by seeing all available information.

"There is a reliable sources group essentially that debates it." "There are PR firms, just for example, that do nothing but edit articles on Wikipedia in order to be able to insert desired factoids according to how people pay them, essentially." "It's called paid editing." "There are 833 administrators as they're called." "16 bureaucrats who can name the cops." "Only nine, fourteen point five percent are named." "85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia on the editorial side are anonymous." "They can libel people with impunity as they do you." "There is no legal recourse because they are anonymous." "The Wikimedia Foundation enjoys section two thirty immunity, which means it can't be sued in The United States."

Larry Sanger explains Wikipedia’s origin with Jimmy Wales, stating "I coined the name Wikipedia" and that he drafted policies like "the neutrality policy" to "summarize knowledge fairly and without bias." He notes the project later aligned with center-left media, and the "neutral point of view" now "discourages giving equal validity to, minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claims." Conservatives were pushed out; "85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous" and "the Wikimedia Foundation enjoys section two thirty immunity." The "perennial sources page" blacklist blocks Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist. Sanger’s nine theses: 1 end decision making by consensus; 2 enable competing articles; 3 abolish source blacklists; 4 revive the original neutrality policy; 5 repeal ignore all rules; 6 reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are; 7 let the public rate articles; 8 end indefinite blocking; 9 adopt a legislative process.

Google, Palantir, Microsoft, Apple, Meta, X, Oracle, Amazon, what do all these companies have in common? Well, they're making a bag off the Palestinian genocide. These four companies, Google, Oracle, Amazon, and Microsoft run data centers for the Israeli military, storing the massive amount of surveillance data they track Palestinians. It's the infrastructure for the genocide. They feed that data, store it in these data centers, providing the compute for Palantir's AI killing systems, their algorithms that they've entered into a massive warfare deal with Israel for. It's allowed the systematic destruction of Palestinian civilization in Gaza. That's Palantir. They've netted hundreds of billions since entering this deal. They provide the means. Who provides the weapons? Well, of course, everyone knows this answer. It's The United States taxpayer. It's our war company. So add them in there too. On top of this, you have Google, X, and Meta all taking money from Israel, all taking money from Netanyahu's propaganda arm to push propaganda to Americans, denying the genocide, denying war crimes, denying masturbation in Gaza. Most recently, drop site news exposed Google and X, Google taking 45 mil, X taking 2 mil, from Netanyahu's office to deny masturbation in Gaza. This started just days after Israel began cutting off all aid to the Gaza Strip for over eighty straight days. This is complicity at the top level. I didn't forget about Apple. Of course, they run their largest R and D center in Israel, complicit in apartheid and occupation. They also match employee donations to the IDF and groups linked to the IDF. They're funding war criminals. Let's take let's take our attention away from Israel and look back home. Every single one of these companies are run by Zionists. Every single one of them. They've all donated to Trump because if they get in his good graces, Trump will let them do whatever they want. Trump loves letting billionaires do whatever they want. In fact, that's why only five companies control 90% of The US media market. It's true. That doesn't include social media, but we'll get to that in a second. Five companies, none of The US outlets are willing to call it a genocide or call out Israel's crimes. That's because their editorial boards are controlled by Zionists. This is not some conspiracy theory. It's factual. You cannot go to CNN, let alone any conservative site. But CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, none of them none of them are calling it genocide. They're all covering up. They're all playing the propaganda game for Israel. Now let's turn our attention to the social media because that's not included in the 90%. We have the top three, the big three, Meta, X, and TikTok. And TikTok's an interesting case. But first of all, Meta blacklist pro Palestinian activist. I'm blacklisted on Meta for my free speech criticizing Israel. They've also hired hundreds of ex IDF soldiers from the intelligence unit, unit a two hundred, to run their moderation team. That's why this is all happening. They put Zionists in charge of their free speech policy. That's similar to what TikTok has done. They got lobbied by the ADL. They were pressured by the US government, surely, by this bipartisan bill to ban TikTok because of hosting anti Israel content like mine and many people, to hire an ex IDF soldier and put her, Erica Mendel, in charge of their hate speech policy, which she changed, and those changes went into effect on September 13. Since then, every single one of my videos criticizing Israel, making connections, talking about how literally, everything I'm talking about in this video, that's what has been getting pulled off the For You page or just getting banned out right now. The censorship is super ramped up, they're trying to sell TikTok US to Larry Ellison, who is the CEO of Oracle, the one who runs the data centers. You know, Larry Ellison once offered Netanyahu a seat on the board of Oracle. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. They're buds. They're like that. He's gonna con he's a Zionist, magabillionaire. Right? Whatever. And he's going to censor everyone once he owns it. So we got two things for TikTok. Met we covered MetaX. Elon Musk, he banned his own chatbot, Grok, when it started telling people there was genocide in Gaza. He's disgusting, and, you know, obviously, he took the money from Israel to run propaganda ads. So that's just great. That covers about everything. Welcome to The United States Of Israel, guys. Welcome to The United States Of Israel. We haven't even touched we haven't even touched on what our government has done under Biden. They arrested 3,200 student activists and professors who protested the genocide peacefully on college campuses, calling on their schools to divest their massive endowment funds worth billions from all these complicit companies I'm telling you about right now. But the schools wouldn't do it. They wouldn't do the right thing and stand with humanity. And, you know, there's a lot you can talk about under Biden. He, conducted most of this genocide, oversaw the destruction of every single one of Gaza's hospitals, amongst other things, while lying about a ceasefire even though he never pressured Israel for a ceasefire once. Now Trump, you know, he ramps it up even more, and they're talking about taking away US citizens' passports if you criticize the state of Israel. They are deporting student activists like Mahmoud Khalil, who, you know, is pro Palestinian. He stands in solidarity with them. They're pulling funding from schools that allow allow anti Israel or pro Palestinian protests that are peaceful. They're pulling funding. Both parties were involved in passing that bill to ban TikTok, which has led us to where we are now with Larry Ellison. So, you know, we can we can blame both parties for that. Let's look at the parties a little more closely, though, and who funds them. APAC. APAC spent over 100,000,000. They're just one part of the massive prosely lobby. They spent 100,000,000 and elected into power a super majority of Zionists into congress. They supported a super majority of Zionists in 2024 and got them elected. Almost every single one except like two, I believe. That's why no one in government is gonna say no to giving Israel as many weapons as they ask for. That's why they're gonna do everything they want to to suppress criticism of Israel, do all these things that I just described, enable these companies to make a bag off the Palestinian genocide? Why do only 20 of our 435 congress members say it's genocide when half of American voters are saying it's genocide? And just look at the Democrat party, what is it? 77% of their base says it's genocide? 92% of their base wants to stop sending weapons to Israel? And yet they can't even they can't even criticize Israel. The party won't stop weapons to Israel. They won't even vote on that policy on their platform. This is a pretty good picture, like, the wide view of what is happening. You have all the billionaires aligned with Israel, whether they be Christian or Jewish Zionist. You have every single big tech company supporting Israel in some way, fueling the systems they are using to commit genocide, taking money for propaganda. You have all our media institutions doing the same thing and running cover for them. And you have all of our politicians as well. This isn't some conspiracy theory. This is real life. You have to admit that there might be there might be a problem when you have four and a half percent of congress saying genocide while 50 plus percent of American voters are saying it's genocide. What's going on? We've lost our sovereignty. It's not a joke. It's not hyperbole. We go to war against Iran on Israel's behalf. We change our laws prevent criticism of Israel. We're trying to ban boycotting Israel to throw American citizens in jail. The DOJ has been given the power to denaturalize anyone they see fit and explicitly those who are critical of the state of Israel. This is this is great. Trump also threatened to not do a deal with Canada because they're recognizing Palestine. We're sanctioning the international courts. We're threatening to pull out of the UN if they kick Israel out. Both of us on the left and right need to unite and rid Zionist influence out of America. This is insane. They don't care about what we think. They don't care about our interests or our human morals or the fact it's our tax dollars funding all of this. Every single one of these genocide profiteers must be held accountable. Our politicians, the companies, and the billionaires. You can support my work by clicking the link in my bio, which will let you subscribe to my Substack. Thank you and free Palestine.

"Anti defamation league gets a green light." "Only for some. Yes." "You may not cite them." "You can't you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore." "Not to my knowledge, except now there is a congressional investigation." "I don't know if my tweet had anything to do with the start of that." "I think it had more to do with the reporting of Ashley Rinsberg." "And well, of course, Israel and I would add, Hindus are very bothered with the way that their ethnic groups are treated in Wikipedia." "And both of both a whole bunch of Jews and Hindus have been after me in the last couple of years saying, you've got to speak out." "You've got to speak out." "People who are organized have a way to push back against the lying." "I think that if, like, Israeli intelligence, for example, got together and made a real concerted effort to to fight against the this group of 40 Muslim activists that Ashley Rinsberg identified." "They might be able to make some inroads." "It really depends It's possible."

Wikipedia, the web-based encyclopedia, was founded on the idea of crowd-sourced, user-generated content. However, concerns have been raised about political bias in its editing process. While Wikipedia claims to be open to anyone editing, there is evidence of left-leaning bias among its administrators. Reliable sources on the left are deemed acceptable, while conservative outlets are often rejected. Examples of bias include downplaying violence by the Antifa movement and minimizing the atrocities of socialism and communism. Attempts to correct these biases are quickly reverted. Despite its popularity, many are skeptical of the political neutrality of Wikipedia and have stopped donating to the platform.

Wikipedia initially adopted a neutrality policy from Nootenia and made significant efforts to maintain it for its first five years. However, over the past 10 to 15 years, it has gradually shifted towards a leftist perspective, particularly in political articles. This change mirrors the broader trends in news media, which have increasingly moved to the left. As a result, Wikipedia has excluded many conservative news sources and blogs from its references. This evolution has been surprising, especially considering the noticeable shift towards a center-left viewpoint that was already evident by 2010.

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.

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.

We're examining a blocked domain list that includes liveaction.org, a pro-life organization founded by Lila Rose. Initially, this site was mistakenly categorized under a porn block list, preventing users from creating pins linking to it. After reaching out to Pinterest, they reversed this decision and removed the block. Additionally, a document revealed that many terms, including those related to Christianity, were flagged, while searches for "Muslim" and "Jewish" yield autocomplete suggestions. In contrast, searches for "Christian" do not trigger any suggestions, indicating a disparity in how different terms are treated. Some offensive terms are also included in the block list, raising concerns about the criteria used for filtering content.

Goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world. As a way of example, if someone searches the Gaza Flotilla, we wanna be there. We wanna be the the guys who influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure that it's balanced and Zionist in their nature. Three days after the US Congress action, the House Oversight Committee demanded Wikipedia turn over identifying info for users who may be spreading anti Israel content based on a report from our ADL. Screenshots show: "we seek your assistance in obtaining documents and communications regarding individuals or specific accounts serving as Wikipedia volunteer editors who violated Wikipedia platform policies as well as your own efforts to thwart intentional organized efforts to inject bias into important and sensitive topics." Also: "one recent report raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance anti Semitic and anti Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the state of Israel." Records show identifying characteristics of accounts, IP addresses, registration dates, user activity logs for editors subject to ARBCOMM, analysis by Wikimedia Foundation, patterns of manipulation or bias related to antisemitism and conflicts with the state of Israel. Jen and Munis: "Many of the people on that committee claimed to be anti censorship during Biden's tenure. The brazen hypocrisy is almost unbearable." Squirrel: "the Israeli regime regime's propaganda complex has dedicated courses and entire teams focused on editing Wikipedia so that it reflects their genocidal worldview." A Nico Haus video argues this is "the exact same thing that Israel themselves have been doing for literal years." Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, says that Wikipedia just isn't scientist enough for the ADL's life; "18 times more likely a small group of people to communicate in their group communications," tandem editing, and "30 or so people are able to manipulate articles on antisemitism, on Israel, on The Middle East." Naftali Bennett: "Wet'suftiyeh, in conjunction with my Israel, has arranged instruction day for wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world. As a way of example, if someone searches the Gaza Flotilla, we wanna be there. We wanna be the the guys who influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure that it's balanced and, Zionist in their nature." They claim Wikipedia protects Zionists and still omits key facts, such as regarding October 7 or the West Bank, and conclude with a pointed remark about genocide.

- The blacklisted sources are Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist. - Greenlit sources: New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD. These are all greenlit, fully greenlit. - Red means it's blacklisted. You cannot cite it as a source of facts. Maybe as a source of opinion, but generally that works out. - Anti defamationally gets a green light. Only for some; Yes. If you're actually reporting about the Arab—The Israeli conflict? Yes. You may not cite them. - There is a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia. - Counterpunch is not allowed. Daily Caller not allowed. Sputnik, of course, not allowed. - Daily Mail not yeah. I did start it. I've got nothing to do with it now, but I did start it. - Life site news not allowed. - Mister x is the name of his account. - TV guide allowed.

Wikipedia inherited its neutrality policy from Nupedia and initially made a strong effort to maintain it for about five years. However, over time, it has shifted towards what some perceive as leftist propaganda, particularly in political articles. This change aligns with the broader shift in news media over the past 10 to 15 years, which has seen a decline in conservative sources and an increase in left-leaning perspectives. The evolution of Wikipedia's content has mirrored this media landscape shift, leading to a noticeable center-left bias by around 2010.

Yesterday, Donald Trump banned the Associated Press from the White House because it declines to call the Gulf Of Mexico the Gulf Of America. This is press censorship based on viewpoint discrimination. During Trump's presidency, the DOD kicked out news groups from the Pentagon that asked skeptical questions, including the New York Times, NBC News, and the Washington Post. These organizations were replaced by outlets willing to advance the party line of the states, like Breitbart and One American News Network.

"Goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world." "The house oversight committee demanded Wikipedia turnover identifying info for users who may be spreading anti Israel content based on a report from who else? Our friends at the ADL." "one recent report raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance anti Semitic and anti Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the state of Israel." "the Israeli regime regime's propaganda complex has dedicated courses and entire teams focused on editing Wikipedia so that it reflects their genocidal worldview." "Go to Wikipedia right now. Look up October 7 and see if there is any mention of the literal thousands of Palestinians who have been held hostage."

- Wikipedia's most powerful editors remain overwhelmingly anonymous despite wielding enormous influence over one of the world's most powerful media platforms. These leaders must be publicly identified for accountability and given liability insurance as, you know, as volunteers of nonprofits often are. - I don't think it's widely known that 85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous. - Wikipedia should implement a public rating and feedback system allowing readers to evaluate articles. They can't do that now. They don't have a comment section. They don't have any sort of rating section. - End indefinite blocking. Wikipedia's practice of blocking accounts permanently is unjust and ideologically motivated. In a period of two weeks, 47% of the blocks that had been done by Wikipedia were indefinite. - Indefinite blocks should be extremely rare and require multiple administrators to agree, with an appeal process for permanent blocks.

Wikipedia initially adopted a neutrality policy from Nootenia and maintained a genuine effort at neutrality for its first five years. However, over the past decade, it has shifted towards a leftist perspective, particularly in political articles. This change aligns with the broader leftward trend in mainstream news media, which has increasingly excluded conservative sources. As a result, Wikipedia's content has reflected this shift, moving away from a more balanced viewpoint. Even a decade ago, signs of this decline towards a center-left bias were evident.

My Israel has arranged an instruction day for Wiki editors to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, the number one source of information today. If someone searches Gaza flotilla, we wanna be there, to influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure it's balanced and Zionist in nature. A participant says they came to learn how Israelis and Jews can defend Israel online, particularly in Wikipedia. They describe Wikipedia as a complex system and note that edits against Israel were erased or undone. They argue this knowledge is important for anyone who wants to defend Israel online, to see when information isn't quite right, to counter one-sided storytelling, and to ensure the other side of the story gets the right coverage. They state that content is filled with antisemitism, anti Zionism, and garbage, and call for activists to promote defense of Israel.

- Grokopedia is introduced as a new alternative to Wikipedia, built on Elon Musk’s xAI model designed for deep understanding and reasoning, not just regurgitating text. - The program suggests Wikipedia has shifted left over time. It recounts how, ten years ago, Wikipedia was praised as a dream and as a replacement for traditional encyclopedias, with Britannica’s editor deriding encyclopedias as requiring paid researchers, while Wikipedia grew to become the world’s go-to resource and Britannica stopped printing books. - The speakers claim that, although Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, politics on the site is dominated by leftists. They point to examples of editors who advertise socialist views and display images of Che Guevara and Lenin. - They state that Wikipedia’s bias is evident in who counts as reliable or not, asserting that conservative media are deemed unreliable while outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, Slate, The Nation, and Mother Jones are considered reliable. They claim Fox News is treated as unreliable, while Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable. - The narrative asserts bias in topic coverage and notability decisions. They mention a controversy over an article about a Ukrainian refugee that was deleted on the grounds it might not meet notability, contrasting it with other crimes that remained in Wikipedia. They also note a case where a suspect’s name was blacked out because he hadn’t been convicted, but another case (Kyle Rittenhouse) was named despite his status as a minor and not convicted. - The discussion includes claims that public pressure can sway Wikipedia at times (e.g., Irina Zerutsko’s article staying after outcry), but overall “nothing changes.” They describe a group of editors they call the “gang of forty,” who allegedly push propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict by removing mentions of terror attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, and they describe a page titled “Donald Trump and Fascism” created just before a presidential election as interfering with elections. - They argue that Wikipedia presents a single worldview on major topics, excluding other perspectives, citing Fidel Castro’s successor Raul Castro as lacking the term “authoritarian” on his page, while other leaders have such labels applied. They also discuss government censorship and state-controlled outlets influencing Wikipedia’s content, noting that Chinese government censors flood the site and that China runs state propaganda outlets cited tens of thousands of times. - The COVID-19 lab-leak theory is discussed, with the speakers claiming that while evidence later emerged suggesting a lab origin, Wikipedia still claims “no evidence supporting laboratory involvement,” calling it a conspiracy theory. - Grokopedia is presented as offering an alternative where Grok lists investigations that affirm a lab-leak as the most probable origin, and the speaker says Grok is better than Wikipedia on their own page, which they claim contains mistakes and smears on the Wikipedia platform. - They mention other competing projects like Justopedia, founded by a veteran Wikipedia editor who wanted an alternative due to perceived left-wing bias; Scienceopedia and Justopedia are described as gaining momentum to provide more source variety. - The discussion closes with perspectives on governance of Wikipedia’s editorial direction: Catherine Mayer, head of the Wikimedia Foundation, is portrayed as evolving Wikipedia toward a woke and DEI ideology, with Maurer described as shaping critical years starting in 2016 and steering the foundation toward a social justice mission. - The speakers conclude with a call for dedicated, area-specific editors to enter and influence topics, suggesting that a few dozen committed editors could make a difference, though acknowledging the time required.