UK censorship bill will impact small, independent media outlets while giving large media outlets a pass

The UK government is currently pushing a sweeping online censorship bill, the Online Safety Bill, which will force tech giants to censor content based on the vague, subjective term “harm.”

One of the government’s main arguments when attempting to defend these controversial censorship requirements has been that “news content will be completely exempt from any regulation under the Bill.” However, the rules that govern these exemptions are written in a way that favors large media outlets and makes it difficult for small, independent outlets to qualify.

For starters, the state-funded media outlets the BBC and Sianel Pedwar Cymru (S4C) automatically qualify as “recognised news publishers” – the standard that determines whether a publisher is exempt from the bill’s regulations.

Other outlets need to either hold a license under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 or meet numerous conditions which include “publishing news-related material that is created by different persons,” having a registered office or business address in the UK, making the name and address of the outlet’s owner public, being subject to a standards code and editorial control, and having a complaints procedure.

Obtaining a license under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 creates additional costs for small outlets, such as the £2,500 ($3,300) license application fee and the minimum annual license fee of £1,000, ($1,320). It also gives Ofcom the power to decide which outlets can get a license.

The provision for news-related materials from non-license holders to be created by “different persons” also prevents individual journalists from qualifying as recognized news publishers. Furthermore, the requirement for non-license holders to make their name and address public shuts out anonymous or pseudonymous publishers from these recognized news publisher exemptions.

Keep reading

Biden to Nominate ATF Director, Announce Order on ‘Ghost Guns’

President Joe Biden is set to make another nomination for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and announce new executive actions restricting “ghost guns.”

The president is tapping former U.S. Attorney Steve Dettelbach to head the ATF. Biden’s previous nomination, David Chipman, was pulled back in September as Chipman found opposition from Senate Republicans and some Democrats.

Chipman’s history of gun control advocacy had him squaring off against gun rights groups.

Dettelbach was confirmed for his position as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio in 2009. He also spent two decades as a prosecutor for the Department of Justice (DOJ), according to a White House “fact sheet.”

Dettelbach also ran an unsuccessful campaign for Ohio Attorney General during which he advocated for an assault weapons ban, according to the Ohio public radio station WOSU.

The top spot at the ATF has been mostly vacant since it became a Senate-confirmed position in 2006. The only person to serve as permanent ATF director since that time was Byron Todd Jones who filled the role from 2013 to 2015.

Biden is also set to announce Monday a final rule on ghost guns—unregistered firearms often built using a 3D printer.

Biden’s rule will require kits that can be used to build a gun to be registered as such. It also includes an effort to serialize ghost guns already in circulation. Additionally, Biden’s order will update serialization and background check laws for guns with split receivers and require firearms dealers to retain records for as long as their business is open.

Keep reading

2024 hopefuls are already in a dark-money arms race

At least a dozen potential candidates for president in 2024 have active nonprofit groups aligned with them, according to a review of corporate filings, campaign disclosures and financial records obtained by POLITICO. Some of them, like the nonprofits affiliated with Pompeo or Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), have never been publicly revealed before. Others, like those supporting President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, have been operating in the open for years.

What they all have in common is the ability to pay staffers, fund polling and policy research, run ads and accept money from megadonors without divulging those funders’ names — or much information about any spending until many months after the fact. It’s the latest escalation in a fundraising arms race that has seen personal benefactors, super PACs and now secret money become common building blocks of presidential campaigns.

Every candidate who seeks the White House in 2024 will have to start disclosing their campaign fundraising and spending once they officially declare their campaigns. But in the meantime, and in the absence of new legislation or an enforcement crackdown from tax or campaign-finance regulators, prospective presidents can use nonprofits to shield their donors — and much about their preparations — from the public eye.

Keep reading

‘Something That’s Frightening’: Robert Epstein Warns Against Big Tech Manipulation

A senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, in California, Robert Epstein has been researching and looking at how the biggest tech companies influence human behavior, and conducting extensive monitoring projects of bias in these companies’ products, with a particular focus on Google.

Epstein called his findings “frightening” because of the tech companies’ ability to manipulate and change people’s behavior on a global scale.

“Now, put that all together, you’ve got something that’s frightening, because you have sources of influence, controlled by really a handful of executives who are not accountable to any public, not the American public, not any public anywhere. They’re only accountable to their shareholders,” Epstein told host of American Thought Leaders Jan Jekielek during a recent interview.

“And yet, they hold in their hands, the power to change thinking behavior on a massive scale, the power in close elections anyway, to pick the winner in the country after country after country.”

Keep reading

An Inside Look into the CIA’s Collusion with Journalists

A prominent national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times routinely submitted drafts and detailed summaries of his stories to CIA press handlers prior to publication, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.

Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.

“I’m working on a story about congressional oversight of drone strikes that can present a good opportunity for you guys,” Dilanian wrote in one email to a CIA press officer, explaining that what he intended to report would be “reassuring to the public” about CIA drone strikes. In another, after a series of back-and-forth emails about a pending story on CIA operations in Yemen, he sent a full draft of an unpublished report along with the subject line, “does this look better?” In another, he directly asks the flack: “You wouldn’t put out disinformation on this, would you?”

Dilanian’s emails were included in hundreds of pages of documents that the CIA turned over in response to two FOIA requests seeking records on the agency’s interactions with reporters. They include email exchanges with reporters for the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other outlets. In addition to Dilanian’s deferential relationship with the CIA’s press handlers, the documents show that the agency regularly invites journalists to its McLean, Va., headquarters for briefings and other events. Reporters who have addressed the CIA include the Washington Post‘s David Ignatius, the former ombudsmen for the New York Times, NPR, and Washington Post, and Fox News’ Brett Baier, Juan Williams, and Catherine Herridge.

Dilanian left the Times to join the AP last May, and the emails released by the CIA only cover a few months of his tenure at the Times. They show that in June 2012, shortly after 26 members of congress wrote a letter to President Obama saying they were “deeply concerned” about the drone program, Dilanian approached the agency about story that he pitched as “a good opportunity” for the government.

The letter from lawmakers, which was sent in the wake of a flurry of drone strikes that had reportedly killed dozens of civilians, suggested there was no meaningful congressional oversight of the program. But Dilanian wrote that he had been “told differently by people I trust.” He added:

Not only would such a story be reassuring to the public, I would think, but it would also be an opportunity to explore the misinformation about strikes that sometimes comes out of local media reports. It’s one thing for you to say three killed instead of 15, and it’s another for congressional aides from both parties to back you up. Part of what the story will do, if you could help me bring it to fruition, is to quote congressional officials saying that great care is taken to avoid collateral damage and that the reports of widespread civilian casualties are simply wrong.

Of course, journalists routinely curry favor with government sources (and others) by falsely suggesting that they intend to amplify the official point of view. But the emails show that Dilanian really meant it.

Keep reading

Government of Canada data suggests the Triple Vaccinated are suffering Antibody Dependent Enhancement; and Pfizer & the FDA knew it would happen

Official Government data coming out of Canada shows that fully vaccinated individuals are now statistically over four times more likely to be infected with Covid-19, 1.5 times more likely to be hospitalised with Covid-19, and twice as likely to die of Covid-19 than not-vaccinated individuals.

The horrifying thing about these stats is that they do not take into account age or the length of time since a person was vaccinated, but still equate to an average that shows the Covid-19 injections are not just ineffective but actually seem to worsen the effects of Covid-19 infection.

These are the sort of figures you would expect to see if a vaccine was causing Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease and antibody-dependent enhancement, and it turns out the latest round of confidential Pfizer documents confirm that both Pfizer and the US Food & Drug Administration knew it was a possibility upon emergency approval of the mRNA jab.

Then they received evidence of it occurring, including several deaths, but decided to ignore it and claim “no new safety issues have been raised”.

Keep reading

Canada’s new budget includes regulating crowdfunding after Freedom Convoy support

Canada’s new budget announced On April 8 includes restrictions on crowdfunding platforms and an investigation into cryptocurrency. The two provisions are some of the sanctions the government imposed under the Emergencies Act to stop the Freedom Convoy Protest.

While announcing the new budget, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said that there would be stricter regulations for crowdfunding platforms and payments processors and a “legislative review” of cryptocurrency.

“In the last several months … there have been a number of high-profile examples — both around the world and here in Canada — where digital assets and cryptocurrencies have been used to avoid global sanctions and fund illegal activities,” the government said, citing the use of crypto to evade sanctions imposed to end the Freedom Convoy Protests.

Keep reading