reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @sbakertx
Posted - September 19, 2023 at 9:46 PM
Saved - September 20, 2023 at 2:27 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Private companies, nonprofits, and colleges are being utilized by CISA to carry out its agenda. EIP, funded by the government, coerces social media platforms to adopt strict policies on election integrity. They threaten non-compliant platforms with regulation and media backlash. EIP monitors sites, reporting problematic content to companies. The government benefits from limited competition, as it allows for greater control.
@sbakertx - Scot Baker
This is an education course. It explains the use of private (non-governmental) companies/non-profits/colleges to do the bidding of CISA. EIP was the instrument in Election Integrity censorship. EIP (govt funded, I mean given a grant) strong arms social media companies to adopt a new TOS policy that dragnets posts/vids as misinformation regarding election integrity. Threaten companies with govt regulation and PR crisis (use of media to bash platforms that won't comply with censorship). EIP has team of people scouring sites. Emails companies problematic posts/vids to deal with against the new TOS they wrote for them. Govt incentivized to not allow new competition. More companies are harder to control.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
My response to the Washington Post. This is a 40-minute lecture, Part 1 in what I'd like to be an ongoing series, Censorship Industry Decoded. This first video cut through the tricks & traps in WaPo's verbage. These tricks are stock for the industry & essential to understand.
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video discusses a government scandal involving the censorship of social media posts during the 2020 and 2022 elections. The speaker highlights the deceptive tactics used by the Washington Post to downplay the scandal. The so-called "academics" involved in the censorship were actually government cutouts, working closely with tech platforms to flag and remove posts. They were funded by the government and had revolving door relationships with government agencies. The speaker exposes how these academics actively pressured the tech platforms to adopt censorship policies and targeted millions of posts for removal. The video also reveals the manipulation of terms like "studied" and "misinformation narratives" to justify the censorship. This is just a summary of the extensive information covered in the video.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, I'm going to break down one of the biggest government scandals in the entire history of the 21st century through the lens of breaking down the deceptive framing devices used by the Washington Post this week to try to stop the scandal's public exposure. What I've done here is I've highlighted this whole article and every one of these highlights is going to elucidate a deeper aspect of the scandal. This is intended to be a deep dive analysis for those who are totally new here and you just want to primer on the whole thing, which is essentially the story of how hundreds of millions of social media posts across Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, every single platform on the American Internet was censored ahead of the 2020 elections, during the 2022 midterm elections the private sector, civil society and news media and fact checking orgs fused into the cell of a single atom essentially to form what was called or whole of society response to censoring the internet.
Speaker 1: Addressing disinformation requires a whole of society approach. We often talk about a whole of society response.
Speaker 2: From a systems standpoint, and and we hear this term all the time, A problem like disinformation, fighting disinformation, really requires a whole of society response. And I know whole of society is a little bit cliche and and a term that It's thrown around a
Speaker 1: lot. I think the solution has to be whole of society, which is the word that we throw around a lot, especially in venues like these. Right? We need cooperation from the tech platforms. But we also need people in the government who are willing to say yes, this is a problem and it's not just about foreign actors.
Speaker 0: This is going to be a pretty advanced talk aimed to educate policymakers and investigators who have a certain baseline background in this. If you're new and you want the world's best primer on it, Simply go to this primer on Foundation For Freedom online. It breaks down the entire thing, the networks, the funding, the scale and scope of the censorship that was done, who all was involved, why they did it, their confession videos essentially on tape. You will walk away on this with a PhD in the scandal. But I'm going to use this lecture for a deep dive.
But again, if you want it linearly, simply go right here. So The Washington Post reached out to me this week telling me that they were going to be running this piece, and I had a conversation with Gabe Kaminski from the Washington Examiner about my expectations. I told Gabe ahead of time that the piece would be indistinguishable from a ChattGBT auto aggregation negation of all the press releases of the Federal Government and EIP simply taking their word for what they say without any interrogation of the mountains of underlying evidence, confession videos, source documents. I told Gabe that the the article is going to deflect by using words like researcher and study instead of using the word censorship or flagging. It's going to try to characterize them as nebbish professors rather than as government partnered operatives, And it is probably going to even include and I said this directly and you can ask Gabe.
I said it's probably also going to have a picture of one of the stars of the story, like Alex Stamos or Renee Di Resta or Kate Starbird. And it's going to have soft lighting, and it's going to be middle distance and the person is going to be looking slightly away from the camera, in a kind of, angelic, mysterious hue to really drive home the, the mystery. I said they'll probably even send out a photo team to do it And as you can see, it turns out they actually used a picture from March for this, but it's It feels like that scene from 8 Mile where, you know, M and M sort of says what The, you know, the other guy is gonna rap about before it comes out. I called each and every aspect of this And you're going to find out now why this was so predictable and how and, and what a mistake they made by, by bringing this to me. So let's now tell this story through the lens of cutting through the deceptive framing devices that The Washington Post uses here.
We'll start with the title. These academics studied falsehood spread by Trump. Now the GOP wants answers. Let's start with the word academics. This is the word used to mislead you.
These are not academics. These are government cutouts. I'm going to say that again. These are not academics, certainly not in any classical sense that matches any definition that you probably associate with an academic. These are government cutouts.
They are self aware that they are government cutouts. The government itself is self aware that the universities are government cutouts. In fact, the head of EIP, the Election Integrity Partnership, The head of the 120 person censorship consortium partnered with the Department of Homeland Security even described his university department and EIP writ large as a government cutout.
Speaker 3: There was a lack of capability around election disinformation. This is not because CISA didn't care about disinformation, but at the time, they lacked, both kind of the funding and the legal authorizations, to go do the kinds of work that would be necessary to truly understand how election disinformation was operating. So because of the feedback, and the ideas from these, this group, we were able to pull together pretty quickly a project between these 4 different institutions to try to fill the gap of the things that the government cannot do themselves. Just, lacked the legal authorizations. So we were able to pull together a project to try to fill the gap of the things that the government cannot do themselves.
Speaker 0: So understand what he just said right there. This is Alex Stamos, the head of Stanford University's censorship lab, the Stanford Internet Observatory, The head of the entire EIP consortium with Stanford, UW, Graphica and the Atlantic Council saying that CISA, the censorship sub agency within DHS, wanted to do this counter misinformation work, which as you will see, is just straight up censorship work. That's it. It's not research. It's mass flagging and programming the algorithms to tune you out of existence.
And he is saying the federal government, CISA, Wanted to do this, expressed an interest in doing this, but they knew that it was illegal. They lacked the legal authorizations. And so EIP was set up to fill the gaps of what the government could not do itself. This is what is called a government cutout. When the government wants to do something but doesn't want to be seen doing it, It launders or outsources to a non governmental private sector or for a civil society institution working closely behind the scenes with the government so that technically, Even though it's government sourced and government sought, the fingerprints are on an entity at the plausible deniable level at a nongovernmental way.
This is stuff the CIA does. When the state department wants to carry out a deniable operation, doesn't want the US government's fingerprints on something, the CIA will carry it out and it will work through a series of cutout organizations that don't look like their government. They will work with private firms and they will work with universities to launder the operation to remove the fingerprints. But here you have the head of EIP giving up the game saying they only set it up because the government told them they couldn't do it. They were expressly set up as a cutout.
The whole premise of using a word like academic is to present the academics as if they are independent, totally independent from the government, removed, making up their own minds, a firewall between them and the government. And yet, not only were they partnered and as we will see, using government funded domestic disinformation switchboards to mass flag your posts, They were a birth child of the federal government. They asked the government for permission to exist. This is page 21 of EIP's and the company's 2 92 page tell all report in which they bragged about everything they did and got rewarded by the Biden administration integration with a joint $3,000,000 government grant to do more censorship for the 2022 midterms and the 2024 election. They also sell this, this censorship structuring instruction manual to other universities.
What you see on page 21 here is EIP's operational timeline, their self described operational timeline. You'll see on June 9, 2020, this 4 months before the election, before election day of the the last presidential election, EIP had a meeting with CISA to present EIP concept. So this is EIP, Alex Stamos, meeting with the government to present to the government their proposed solution for filling the gaps of what the government wanted to censor but could not do itself. You can't get more government cut out than that. Actually, you can.
These are screenshots, citations in the FFO report showing that Every single entity in the Election Integrity Partnership, all 4 of them, Stanford UW, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council, all are funded by the federal government. Graphica gets got about $7,000,000 in Pentagon grants. The Atlantic Council gets funds from the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the National Endowment For Democracy, USAID, and Stanford in UW just months after the 2020 election that they censored and a 100% of their targets were the opposition to the Biden administration, the Biden administration magically gave them $3,000,000 of your taxpayer funding to upscale them for censoring the 2022 midterms in 2024. That's a 5 year grant, $3,000,000 for Alex Stamos and the rest and Kate Starboard groups. They asked for permission to exist.
They, quote, presented the concept to CISA. The government told them that the government couldn't do it, so they need to exist to fill the government's gaps. They're all funded by the government, but wait, there's more. They're also a complete revolving door with government. Here, you'll see that the head of CISA, Chris Krebs, in 2020.
Right after he left government, the first thing he did was he started a Two man consultancy firm with the head of the IP, Alex Stamos the head of the government side of the censorship and the head of the private sector side of the censorship literally went into business together the moment the government guy got kicked out of government. So the head of CISA gets in bed with Stanford University's Alex Stamos. How about the top deputy at CISA, Matt Masterson? What did he do when he left government? Well, he also went to Alex Stamos' Stanford University, Stanford Air rhetoric as the fellow right after leaving government.
The top 2 guys rotated directly into the exact cutout that they had set up while in government. Alex Stamos and it runs in reverse. It's not just the government with a revolving door to the universities. From the university side, Alex Stamos spent 2021 and 2022 directly on CISA's Cyber Hygiene Advisor Subcommittee. Rene de Ressa gives lectures as we will see at CISA disinformation summits.
Kate Starbird, who is the head of EIP's University of Washington unit, headed the mis and disinformation subcommittee at CISA. So they're currently concurrently occupying these government advisory posts, in addition to being funded by the government, coordinating with the government, being born out of the government and rotating, back and forth totally interstitial. And in fact, the whole society model is for them to be in lockstep. So understand when you see this word academic, academic, academic, They are saying this to throw you off. They are saying this so that you don't see the word government and so you don't see the word political operative.
Through the academic institutions, they are raising a censorship mercenary army. As FFO has documented, $40,000,000 have flowed from the Biden administration straight to 40 different universities they
Speaker 2: have raised as a censorship mercenary
Speaker 0: army to do the same thing that or ship mercenary army to do the same thing that Alex Stamos and Stanford and Kate Starbird and UW did in 2020. They wanted to control every sensitive policy issue and were only stopped because of political pushback in late 2022. Alex Stamos is not an academic. Alex Stamos got a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. No PhD.
No Teaching History. Didn't come up through the system like an academic. He runs what's known as a center where he spearheads the university staff that does the censorship work. He is a political operative and that center is simply used as a perch, a non governmental perch for government coordinated operations that the government itself couldn't get caught doing because it would be illegal if the government did it. So they launder it to Alex Stamos' university center where the operative coordinating with the government can fill the gaps of what the government can't do itself.
Now let's look at the next deceptive framing trick. The word studied. Now, this is a big one. Just as the word academics is used, So you don't see the word government cut out. The word studied is used, so you don't see the word censored.
Now understand what they're trying to do here. They are trying to both indirectly suggest, in the sense directly say that they did not directly involve themselves in censorship. They simply studied misinformation. We didn't actually drop the bombs out of the plane they did both they were in a sense not just the research scientists of the atom bomb They were the battle planners of the war, and they personally drove the planes to drop them over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so to speak. And I'm going to show you how they did this.
So we're going to start with a little game where I will play evidence and you will ask yourself, Is this EIP studying something or EIP censoring something? Is this EIP passively research something or is this EIP actively flagging, actively pressuring, actively coercing, actively demanding, actively jawboning the tech companies to tear down information and what information to tear down, when, what, why, who, all the way down to graphs of highly specific individuals and tens of millions of posts in the aggregate. This interview is dated August 26, 2020. EIP's first day of activity was the very next week, September 3rd, right after this interview. And you will hear Alex Stamos describe how he lined up the tech companies in order to get them to take stuff down, not to assist in the research to take stuff down.
Speaker 3: So we have we have reached out and we have had two way conversations with all the major platforms. Right? So we've had really good conversations with Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit. We've talked to TikTok. That's actually been very productive.
Some of the smaller groups, Discord. You know, there's there's a bunch of companies Didn't really exist or they were much smaller in 2016. They're now are real players. So that's been good. I think, you know, Our goal with that is that if we're able to find disinformation that we will be able to report it quickly and then collaborate with them on taking it down.
And there's a good precedent for this, which All 4 of these organizations have worked on research projects side by side with tech platforms.
Speaker 0: Oh, so they're using their research relationship to then I'm sorry. What was that? What did you say that? Say that again.
Speaker 3: Thinking that we'll be able to report it quickly. If they're able to find disinformation, that we'll be able to report it quickly And then collaborate with them on taking it down. And there's a
Speaker 0: Taking it down. So, again, look at our operational timeline. EIP Alex Stamos had a meeting with the government, the federal government CISA to present the concept of a outside censorship consortium. They're saying it was to study misinformation, information. But the study was only the 1st step.
After the studying came the taking it down part. And in fact, he actively colluded with every single tech platform ahead of time. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, even the small ones to line them up so that Alex Stamos and his 120 staffers could report it quickly and take it down the moment EIP went live with the federal or government, which was September 3, 2020, the very week after that interview. So in that intervening period between when he cooked up the idea with the federal government. And when the censorship consortium went live is when he was lining up all of the tech platforms so that they would be in a position to quickly censor the information Stamos flagged.
Now I'm focusing on Alex Stamos here because he is the Head of EIP, he's also the Head of Stanford University and he's also the one who was had the closest relationship, the 2 man consultancy, just him and the head of the very federal government agency they partnered with for censorship. But Alex Stamos had a 120 people, a huge teams, gigantic teams is how they describe
Speaker 3: You're seeing, 5 of us right now, but you know, again, there's like a 120 people who worked on this. I want to make sure all the people in the audience understand that there's huge teams behind each of us.
Speaker 1: Gigantic team.
Speaker 0: Gigantic. Here in EIP's report on page 200 and all throughout the report is their description of nearly 5,000 individual posts, again, First Amendment protected posts about your opinions about elections that EIP manually flagged, manually submitted in their tickets to the tech platforms to take stuff down. And you can see examples of the URLs, the 1st Amendment protected, totally benign, banal, always protected by Americans to be able to talk to each other about is the issue that they flagged in their own tickets for Sharpiegate. Here you see on the screen the censorship collusion screenshots included in their own report where EIP submits a ticket to the tech platforms, all of them, TikTok, Facebook, Google, Twitter as well as EIISAC, which I'll describe later. Where Sharpiegate, they say, is trending on Twitter.
They show the sample the the, a slew of URLs to take down or to action under remove, reduce, and form, which is just censoring by banning it, censoring it by adding friction so it's de amplified or censoring it through a fact check label. It's all censorship. It's all intended to deamplify, to take the stuff down or to or to stop it from going viral. And EIP member says, hello, platform partners. We've added you on several different cases of claims which are going viral right now.
So they are actively organizing every tech platform on earth in the United States so that they can all collectively take down viral claims being made by U. S. Citizens protected by the First Amendment. And on top of that, They rallied them to do a counter narrative. This is as active censorship and as active political engineering as you could possibly get.
And not only that, they had the audacity to redact the government partners. These are government communications. These are communications with government officials. All of this is a violation of the National Records Act. Why aren't these tickets discoverable through FOIA?
Why is Stanford holding them rather than the the government partners? There should never be a government partner with name redacted unless something's classified. And And as you'll see, there's a damn good reason why they're trying to not disclose these tickets because it's where the bodies are buried in the censorship industry, but we'll get to that. Now we get to the dig whopper. We've already established it's not studying.
It was active flagging for takedown. It was active collusion with the federal government and the tech platforms themselves for takedown. It was a government cutout doing the taking down. But how do you get to the scale of hundreds of millions of social media posts? This was introduced through a incredibly devious trick called Deligitimization was the brainchild of EIP to coerce the tech platforms, exploiting their fears of being punished by Washington allies of EIP, exploiting their fear of huge regulatory pressure and crisis PR communications from bad press to get them to add a terms of service violation policy called de legitimization that banned all questions about the legitimacy of election processes, outcomes or election integrity issues, including and especially mail in ballots.
Tens of millions of social media posts about mail in ballots alone were all banned in the United States of America because a government cut out, a monstrosity born out of the Department of Homeland Security and EIP brag that they were responsible for the tech companies adopting this vast terms of service policy change that instantaneously made tens of millions of posts a banable offense, a banable speech police infraction.
Speaker 4: I think the IP really helped push the envelope with things like, to just the notion that this pre this de legitimization of electoral processes that we were seeing in the summer and Early fall that this should be against content moderation policies on these platforms.
Speaker 0: So you just heard him say that it was key who got the tech companies to push the envelope to adopt de legitimization as a terms of service policy, delegitimization of mail in ballots, delegitimization of early voting drop boxes, articulating any of the legal challenges in the courts, agreeing with one of the candidates in the race, in the election. And it was EIP who got them to take the proactive steps to enforce the policy that they jawboned them as we will see to adopt.
Speaker 4: And they began to take proactive steps there. We did Get industry partners to push the envelope a little bit in the US context. But how can a similar kind of pressure and responsiveness, be elicited from platforms when it's not, a U. S. Election with huge regulatory stakes for these companies.
Speaker 0: We did get industry partners, meaning the tech platforms, Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit to adopt This terms of service policy change, this censorship policy, this speech restriction policy, things you cannot talk about in America online anymore. And he and what he says is we got them to do it because there were, quote, huge regulatory stakes for them if they didn't. And they're worried that they won't have the same influence over the tech platforms when they can't command that kind of pressure on the companies on the regulatory side, meaning congressional allies like Senator Mark Warner or Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren, who are all threatening to break up the tech companies if action wasn't taken or to regulate them through the FTC out of profitability. And now you're going to hear Alex Stamos articulate the 2 step plan by by which you get tens of millions of social media posts removed reduced or informed across all of these platforms. Here is the same most two step.
Speaker 3: My suggestion is if people want to get the the platforms to do stuff, is first you gotta push for And so this is something we started in the summer in August is, as Kate talked about, Carly Miller led a team from from all 4 institutions To look at the detailed policies of the big platforms and to measure them against situations that we expected to happen. Now we're not gonna take credit for all the changes they made, But there we had to update this thing like 8 or 9 times. Right? And so, like, putting these people in a grid to say, you're not handling this, you're not handling this, not handling this, Creates a lot of pressure inside the companies and forces them to kind of grapple with these issues because you want specific policies that you can hold them accountable for. The second is when you report stuff to them, report how it's violating those written policies.
Right? So there's 2 steps here. Get good policies and then say, this is how it's violating it. We will have our statistics. Right?
But I think we were pretty effective in getting them to act on things that they hadn't act on it before.
Speaker 0: They were effective at getting the tech platforms to censor content that they didn't censor before, and they did it through 2 steps. They used the threat of regulatory action by the government combined with crisis PR to generate pressure for the companies if they were shown censorship policies adopted by their peers and made to look like they were a platform for misinformation, which in their words created huge pressure inside the companies. And you'll notice how Stamos very carefully tries to hedge by talking about things and stuff rather than saying the word censor.
Speaker 3: We're not gonna take credit for all the changes they made.
Speaker 0: He's saying we're not gonna take credit for all of them because He knows that they have to have some semblance of independence, but he's taking credit for some of them. This is the government. This is the government's handpicked partner and hand selected cutout also funded by the government. Also doing this and censorship through government funded technology through the domestic disinformation switchboard.
Speaker 3: But there we had to update this thing like 8 or 9 times.
Speaker 0: What he's referring to is the grid they created for for all of the platform policies of every single tech platform and then pressuring every single one of them to say, Facebook is censoring mail in ballots. Why aren't you? Why aren't you? You know, there's gonna be Bad PR for you if you, Twitter, are not in line with best practices on stopping misinformation. And Then the hit pieces come as they did and 1 by 1, all of them folded.
And they articulate this as being the effective plan. And these people had the chutzpah to call all of that studying. By EIP's own math, this is page two zero one of their own report. EIP classified 22,000,000 tweets. In just the 2020 election cycle alone as being misinformation terms of service violations, I e, censorable under the very terms of service policy they jawboned the companies to adopt when they didn't want to adopt them and wouldn't have done otherwise.
And they bragged about this on tape. Now when Foundation For Freedom Online broke this 22,000,000 tweet figure. EIP responded in a panic trying to argue that these 22,000,000 tweets they identified as misinformation, they identified them After the election, don't you know? So it's 22,000,000. Yeah.
But that's not what we flagged. That was what we assessed after the election. This is extremely devious on their part. An outrageous limited hangout they're trying to pull here. Those 22,000,000 tweets were made before the election or before all the processes to challenge election and results that were still being processed in the courts.
That is, all these tweets were made between the summer of 2020 and December of 2020. So they were all during the election cycle, these 22,000,000. And wouldn't you know, the very 1st day that EIP formerly began operations. Remember, they started all the way back in June. They were doing concept presentation meetings to CISA then.
But the very 1st day they formally set up shop was the very day that Facebook changed its terms of service to ban de legitimization, meaning anybody who de legitimizes the validity of mail in ballots, early voting drop boxes or any of the voting procedures that were still being litigated in the in the state assemblies, Anyone who de legitimize them, that's tens of millions of Americans no longer able to talk about mail in ballots because a government cut out, a government partnered censorship consortium expressly set up because the government wasn't allowed to do it itself, jaw boned Facebook to adopt that policy. In the very following week, September 10th, Twitter did as well. So those 22,000,000 tweets that were terms of service violations as misinformation, meaning censored under the delegitimization policy. That delegitimization policy was only put in place in Twitter because of EIP and it was done so on September 10th, which meant those 22,000,000 tweets were all bannable only because EIP stepped in to Jawbone them for the entire election cycle. So that's 22,000,000 tweets that EIP targeted for takedown.
Case closed. And then remember, You have to add in all of these platforms. That's 22,000,000 just on Twitter alone. Facebook, Pinterest also September 3rd, 1st day of EIP operations. Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Nextdoor, everyone folded to EIP and the powerful network of congressional allies and major national security figures behind them.
And that's why you couldn't talk about the last election. And as we'll see, it's also why you couldn't talk about the many aspects of the COVID nineteen pandemic. Now another trick that EIP used was to distinguish between incidents and narratives, misinformation incidents, meaning individual posts and misinformation narratives, which can comprise millions of posts. You'll see here these misinformation narratives that they identify everything from the Dominion Voting Machines to the entire Stop the Steal concept or movement, Sharpie gate, narratives around poll watcher issues, the postal service, dead voter rolls, Antifa and the Sunrise Zoom calls. And you'll see here, EIP attaches in their own internal documents the approximate number of tweets related to the misinformation narratives that is the banned narratives.
Some of these have millions or hundreds of thousands, 7,000,000, in 3,000,000, 800,000, 600,000. These are all automatically down ranked under remove, reduce, and form, and they were tickets for all of these and they're refusing to turn them over. These are tickets that combine the federal government, EIP in every single tech platform on earth or at least in America, all plotting to ban You from talking about dozens of narratives and 66 discrete narratives for COVID, they, according to their own document. When they lie straight to your face and tell you they only censored things having to do with time, place and manner of voting.
Speaker 1: We had narrowly tailored scope focused on false and misleading narratives specific to voting.
Speaker 0: Ask them what the Sunrise Zoom calls, the Antifa phone calls are doing on this censored list with hundreds of thousands of misinformation tag posts there or how they censored the color revolution concerns articulated by Darren Beatty's revolver, which is also referenced as a misinformation narrative in EIP's report. You see, one trick that EIT plays is when they deem something to be a misinformation narrative, they no longer need to argue that each individual post, each individual tweet is a terms of service violation. If the misinformation narrative is declared banned, then it doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. If it's malinformation, even if you're right, you are still advancing a narrative that is deemed wrong. It is the great catchall they used to ban, as we'll see, 66 discrete narratives covering everything from vaccines to masks to the efficacy of lockdown policies for the COVID nineteen pandemic.
This is building to be the blueprint for every sensitive policy issue in our democracy. But I'm not weighing in on the substance of any of these narratives. I don't know whether any of these are right or wrong. I don't make a substantive point on these. It's about freedom of speech and freedom on the Internet.
Never before in American history has, have people been banned from being able to talk about and ongoing election especially when that with that banning coming straight from the Department of Homeland Security through a deliberately constructed cut out to disguise the U. S. Government's leadership role. Now we've only covered the tip of the iceberg here, But for brevity sake, I'll pause the lecture here and we'll continue with another round tomorrow.