reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

The discussion centers on the evolution of internet censorship, particularly since 2014, when the U.S. government began collaborating with tech companies and NGOs to combat perceived misinformation. The conversation highlights the intertwining of foreign policy and domestic censorship, especially after the 2016 election, which prompted a significant shift in how the government approached free speech. The role of organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and the Atlantic Council in shaping censorship policies is emphasized, as well as the influence of figures like Hunter Biden in this landscape. The dialogue also touches on the implications of these actions for democracy and the challenges faced by those attempting to reform these systems. The speakers express concern over the potential for censorship to undermine free speech and the integrity of democratic processes.

Speaker 0: The Trump administration launched a cyber strategy recently in the context of the Iran war. The concern is that war is a Trojan horse for government power expansion, eroding civil rights. The document targets cybercrime but also mentions unveiling an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion. The speaker questions whether the government should police propaganda, noting that propaganda is legal in a broad sense, and highlights cultural subversion as a potential tool to align culture with war support. An example cited (satire account) suggests that labeling certain expressions as cultural subversion could chill free expression. Ben Swan is introduced as a guest to discuss the plan and its impact on everyday Americans. Speaker 1: Ben Swan responds that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, so any move toward censorship or identifying propaganda is complicated. He is actually somewhat glad to see language that, at least, mentions “unveil and embarrass” rather than prosecuting or imprisoning. If there are organized online campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments, he views exposing inauthentic activity and embarrassing it as not necessarily a terrible outcome, and he sees this as potentially halting the drift toward broader censorship. He emphasizes that it should not be the government’s job to determine authenticity in online content, and he believes community notes is a better tool than government action for addressing authenticity. Speaker 2: The conversation notes potential blurriness between satire, low-cost AI, and what counts as grassroots versus external influence. If the government were to define and act on what is authentic, would that extend to politically connected figures and inner circles (e.g., MAGA-aligned commentators)? The panel questions whether the office would target these allies and suspects they might not, though they aren’t sure. The discussion moves to real-world consequences, recalling journalists whose bank accounts were shut down, and contrasting that with a platform like Rumble Wallet that offers some financial autonomy away from banks. (Promotional content is present in the transcript but is not included in the summary per guidelines.) Speaker 1: Ben critiques the potential growth of bureaucracies built around “propaganda or bad actors,” noting that such systems tend to justify their own existence and expand over time. He points to Russia-related enforcement as an example of how agencies can expand under the guise of national security. He argues there is no clear “smoking gun” in the document due to its vague, generic language focused on “cyber,” which could allow broad interpretation and future expansion of powers across administrations. He cautions that even supporters of the administration could find the broad terms worrisome because they create enduring bureaucracies that outlive any one presidency. Speaker 0: The discussion returns to concerns about securing emerging technologies, with a reference to an FBI Director’s post about “securing emerging technologies.” The concern is over what “securing” implies, especially if it means controlling or limiting new technologies like AI. The lack of specifics in the document is troubling, as it leaves room for expansive government action in the future. The conversation ends with worry that such language could push toward a modern, more palatable form of prior restraint, rather than clarifying actual threats. Speaker 2: The conversation acknowledges parallels to previous disinformation governance debates, reflecting on Nina Jankowicz and the disinformation governance board, but clarifies that this current approach is seen by the speakers as a distinct, potentially less extreme—but still concerning—direction. The panel hopes to see a rollback or dismantling of overly expansive bureaucratic powers, rather than their expansion.

Author Michael Shellenberger discusses the connection between former President Barack Obama's speech at Stanford University and the announcement of the controversial Disinformation Governance Board by the Department of Homeland Security. Shellenberger suggests that the timing and location of Obama's speech, as well as the presence of organizations advocating for censorship at Stanford, indicate an organized effort to sell the disinformation governance board. The conversation also touches on the inconsistencies in Twitter's content moderation and censorship decisions, including its relationship with intelligence agencies and its handling of international demands for censorship. Shellenberger emphasizes the importance of transparency in content moderation decisions and the need to uphold free speech standards.

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 State Department is dismantling a censorship bureaucracy that began addressing online radicalization by groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. This entity, formerly known as the Global Engagement Center, expanded its scope to include foreign interference in elections and eventually targeted American political voices, labeling them as disinformation. According to the speaker, the center's director equated Trump's speech to that of foreign terrorists. The center allegedly funneled State Department funds to third-party groups that targeted individuals and organizations, which led to deplatforming and reduced visibility on social media. The speaker claims that this amounted to a government-run entity silencing political speech in America. Despite being renamed and moved, the State Department is now dismantling the center, redirecting $50 million to promote free speech. They plan an accountability project to document instances where the center was used against American political voices to prevent future misuse.

Speaker 0 argues that it is all election interference, claiming they love to talk about disinformation and democracy, and that it's all disinformation. They say those people are great at cheating on elections and great at misinformation, disinformation. They claim these people are weaponizing the DOJ and the FBI, our election systems, and attacking free speech, and they're going into the states.

Renee DiResta, a key player in the censorship industrial complex, discusses the power of partnerships in combating misinformation. She highlights the collaboration between government agencies, research organizations, and social media platforms to censor disinformation. DiResta emphasizes the need to create a social norm that supports government censorship and justifies it as a means to prevent harm and protect national security. She proposes the establishment of a Center of Excellence within the federal government to coordinate efforts, deploy experts, and promote resilience products. DiResta acknowledges the importance of respecting civil liberties and free expression while prioritizing effective communication and situational awareness.

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.

Speaker 0 opens by noting the Trump administration recently launched a cyber strategy amid the war with Iran and expresses concern that war often serves as a Trojan horse for expanding government power and eroding civil rights. He examines parts of the plan that give him heartburn, focusing on aims to “unveil an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion,” and questions whether the government should police propaganda or cultural subversion, arguing that propaganda is legal and that individuals should be free to express themselves. Speaker 1, Ben Swan, counters by acknowledging that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, but suggests some of the language in the plan could be positive. He says the administration’s phrasing—“unveil and embarrass”—is not about prosecution or imprisonment but exposing inauthentic campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments. He views this as potentially beneficial if limited to highlighting non-grassroots, authentic concerns, and not expanding censorship. He argues that this approach could roll back some censorship apparatuses the previous years had built. Speaker 2 raises concerns about blurry lines between satire, low-cost AI, and authentic grassroots content, questioning whether the government should determine what is and isn’t authentic. Speaker 1 agrees that it should not be the government’s job to adjudicate authenticity and suggests community notes or crowd-sourced verification as a better mechanism. He gives an example involving Candace Owens’ expose on Erica Kirk and a cohort of right-wing influencers proclaiming she is demonic, labeling such efforts as propaganda under the plan’s framework. He expresses doubt that the administration would pursue those individuals, though he cannot be sure. The conversation shifts to broader implications of a new cyber task force: Speaker 1 cautions that bureaucracy tends to justify its own existence by policing propaganda or bad actors, citing the Russia-focused crackdown era as a precedent. He worries that the language’s vagueness could enable future administrations to expand control, regardless of party. The lack of specifics in “securing emerging technologies” worries both speakers, who interpret it as potentially broad overreach beyond protecting infrastructure, possibly extending into controlling information or AI outputs. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the biggest headaches for war hawks include platforms like TikTok and X, and perhaps certain AIs like Grok. He argues the idea of “securing emerging technologies” could imply controlling truth-telling AI outputs or preventing adverse revelations about Iran. Speaker 1 reiterates that there is no clear smoking gun in the document; the general language makes it hard to assess intent, and the real danger is the ongoing growth and persistence of bureaucracies that can outlast specific administrations. Toward the end, Speaker 1 notes Grok’s ability to verify videos amid widespread war-time misinformation, illustrating how AI verification could counter claims of fake footage, while also acknowledging the broader risk of information manipulation and the government’s expanding role. The discussion closes with a wary reflection on the disinformation governance era and the balance between safeguarding free speech and preventing government overreach.

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 speaker discusses how the US Department of Defense censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle. They explain that a group within the Atlantic Council and the foreign policy establishment pushed for a permanent domestic censorship government office to counter misinformation and disinformation. This office was eventually established within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through an obscure cybersecurity agency called CISA. The speaker details how this agency, with the combined powers of the CIA and FBI, classified online misinformation as a cybersecurity attack on democracy. They further explain how Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council, all Pentagon-associated institutions, were involved in a coordinated mass censorship campaign to pre-censor any disputes about the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. This campaign involved pressuring tech companies to adopt new terms of service speech violation bans. The speaker suggests that this censorship operation was orchestrated to ensure the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a red mirage blue shift event. They also mention the connection between this operation and the impeachment of Trump in late 2019.

The conversation centers on the core idea that democracy hinges on freedom of speech, but with in-depth debate about what that freedom should look like in the context of large platforms. Speaker 0 references the bedrock of democracy and notes a new policy posted yesterday titled “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach,” highlighting the tension between protecting speech and avoiding amplification of harmful or extremist content. Speaker 1, Jonathan, clarifies his stance: “I don't think it's about censorship. I believe in freedom of speech. The ADL is a civil rights organization, but I don't believe in freedom of reach.” He argues that Twitter, like other publishers, should have the ability to choose whom it privileges and who it doesn’t privilege, suggesting there should be a “lunatic fringe” kept on the fringe rather than algorithmically amplified. He lists examples such as “Russian propagandists, alt right crazy people, you know, violent anti Zionists,” implying that such content should not be algorithmically promoted. Speaker 2 asks whether this should be achieved through a free marketplace of ideas managed by private companies or through legal intervention in Washington, prompting Speaker 1 to respond that social media platforms should “simply obey the same rules of business that other publishers do.” Speaker 3 reframes the issue: it is not about limiting anyone's free speech but about giving people the largest platform in history to reach a third of the planet, noting that “Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.” He asserts that there will always be racist, misogynist, anti-Semites, and child abusers, but argues that the goal is not to give bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims. Speaker 4 shifts to the ADL’s operational stance, noting that they opened a center in Silicon Valley in 2017 and that the person running it will be “the next Facebook executive.” They describe having software engineers and data scientists monitoring online content and working with major platforms—Google, YouTube, Meta, Twitter, Reddit, Steam, Amazon, and others from Apple to Zoom. The speaker emphasizes ongoing collaboration with Twitter “since it was founded,” describing continuity with both “the old regime” and “the new regime,” and adds a provocative aside: “Like, I'm talking to Ivon. Bad guy.” The overall thread is a sustained effort to monitor, engage with, and influence platform policies through cross-platform collaboration while advocating for restraint in amplifying harmful content.

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.

The FBI forced social media platforms to remove information from conservative sources, claiming it was disinformation. Speaker 0 asks for a definition of disinformation, but Speaker 1 avoids directly answering. Speaker 0 points out that Elvis Chan, a key witness, testified that 50% of alleged election disinformation was taken down or censored, including content from American citizens. Speaker 1 denies this and states that the FBI does not moderate content or influence social media companies. Speaker 0 insists that Speaker 1 should read the court opinion. The transcript ends abruptly.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of private companies in combating misinformation online. They express concern over the impact of disinformation on democratic institutions, particularly highlighting the refusal to accept election results. The speaker warns of the global spread of rigged election narratives by autocrats, leading to a loss of faith in democracy. They stress the need to trust democratic systems despite imperfections and changing dynamics. The speaker urges vigilance in countering asymmetric warfare through the weaponization of information.

Americans spreading misinformation, whether intentionally or unknowingly, can pose a significant threat to elections. This misinformation can be shared on social media without us realizing it's fake. While foreign interference is a concern, we value and encourage free speech in our country. However, we also need to ensure that if we or the involved firms are aware of foreign-sponsored and covertly sponsored information, we take steps to manage it effectively.

The speaker discusses the erosion of freedom of speech in the United States due to censorship. They explain that censorship is now being justified as a means to combat disinformation and misinformation, but it is being used to silence individuals and control the narrative. The speaker highlights the role of the military industrial complex and defense contractors in this censorship, particularly in the context of global conflicts. They also discuss how the government, including the US government, is involved in directing these censorship efforts. The speaker emphasizes the need for awareness and understanding of how censorship operates in order to protect freedom of speech.

The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of causing harm and failing to distinguish between domestic and foreign speech. They criticize the DHS for record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and drug-related incidents. The speaker also mentions the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency (CISA) colluding with social media companies to censor free speech, as stated in a court opinion. When questioned, the DHS representative claims to be unaware of the court opinion but acknowledges being briefed on the Missouri litigation. The speaker questions the representative about the existence of the misinformation and disinformation subcommittee and who determines what is false. The representative denies involvement in censorship and states that CISA focuses on identifying tactics used by foreign nations to weaponize disinformation. The speaker disputes this, referring to the court's findings. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

Top issues for the country include eliminating disinformation and restoring hope in the system. Disinformation, particularly from news outlets, is a concern, with debates about the validity of various narratives, such as the origins of COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The conversation touches on the role of free speech, the responsibility of media companies, and the potential dangers of allowing any authority to determine what constitutes disinformation. There is disagreement on whether closing schools during COVID was justified and discussions about the implications of censorship. Ultimately, the importance of open debate and the protection of free speech is emphasized, highlighting the risks of allowing any group to dictate truth.

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.

The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of not distinguishing between domestic and foreign speech and causing harm. They mention record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and fentanyl deaths. The speaker also criticizes the creation of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) for colluding with social media companies to censor free speech. They refer to a court opinion that describes this as an attack on free speech. The DHS representative denies these allegations and claims that CISA does not censor speech. The speaker questions their knowledge of the court opinion and challenges them on who determines what is false or inaccurate information. The representative defends CISA's role in identifying tactics used by foreign actors to weaponize disinformation. The speaker argues that determining what is false or true should not be left to the government.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.