Tag: 2024 elections

Disinformation expert laments loss of power over speech on social media leading up to 2024 elections

Adisinformation expert is lamenting that social media platforms have less control over speech as the 2024 elections approach, while conservatives notch wins against the industry and the Department of Homeland Security’s calls for greater censorship.

This comes as the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released yet more evidence this week on nexus of the federal government, universities, and Big Tech that worked to censor Americans during the 2020 election. The House Judiciary Committee also held a hearing on the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to increase censorship through the Election Integrity Partnership.

The new report by the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO) shows how former Big Tech employees and censorship experts are lamenting their shrinking influence as the presidential election approaches next year. Pressure from a Republican House and some journalists discourages the federal government from collaborating with the Big Tech companies as it did during the 2020 election. Some federal courts have weighed in, finding the collaboration unconstitutional.

“Yoel Roth has been on a public speaking tear, sounding alarms to fellow censorship industry insiders that they’ve lost the control over 2024 election speech they once had in 2020,” Mike Benz, executive director of FFO posted to X on Monday.

Keep reading

Is a Cyber 9/11 Coming?

Talk of a “Cyber 9/11” has been circulating for years.  With the next presidential election twelve months away now, some folks are predicting that a major cyber event will happen before then, throwing a monkey wrench into the 2024 election process.

What the heck is Cyber 9/11?

What does Cyber 9/11 mean?  Is there a real risk?  What should we be preparing for?

There are two aspects to the Cyber 9/11 concept.  The first is the disaster itself; 9/11 was a catastrophe that ended the lives of over 3000 people in one day.  There are fears that if power grids were hacked or enough damage was done to logistical centers, the ensuing chaos would cause deaths.

Quite memorably, back in 2000, a disgruntled public works employee in Australia hacked into the water treatment system and caused raw sewage to pour into public areas, flooding a Hyatt hotel.  One man acting alone caused a disgusting, expensive mess. Of course security experts are concerned with what a team of angry individuals could do.

The second aspect to a potential Cyber 9/11 is the change in the regulatory landscape that occurred after 9/11 in 2001.  I remember flying as a teenager in the 90s. So many things changed later.  The airport changes were most obvious to regular citizens, but the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001 was far more consequential.  It dramatically changed the way surveillance was conducted.

Under the Fourth Amendment, private citizens are supposed to be protected from warrantless search and seizures.  The Patriot Act really weakened that. Law enforcement is now allowed to delay the notice of search warrants.  They don’t need nearly as much oversight from judges to conduct phone and internet surveillance.

These Constitution-weakening changes occurred after 9/11 in 2001.

Keep reading

Former FDA Official Says He’d Be ‘Shocked’ If DEA Doesn’t Reschedule Marijuana By 2024 Election

Speaking at a cannabis industry event on Thursday, a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official said he’d be “shocked” if the Drug Enforcement Administration doesn’t reschedule marijuana by next year’s presidential election.

“I would be really shocked if it took the DEA longer than the second quarter of next year to come up with its final rule,” said Howard Sklamberg, former FDA deputy commissioner for global regulatory operations and compliance. “Even when I was at FDA, we knew that important regulations that you wanted to get done in an election year, you want to get done by the summer before.”

Sklamberg also said he expects DEA will ultimately accept the FDA’s recommendation to put cannabis in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) instead of reaching a contradictory scheduling decision.

“I personally would be surprised if DEA did not agree ultimately with FDA and [the Department of Health and Human Services]’s decision,” Sklamberg, who served as chair of FDA’s Marijuana Working Group from 2014 to 2017, said. “It certainly would be strange, in an issue that is such an important priority for the administration, for one part of the administration to reverse what another one has said.”

Sklamberg, now a lawyer at the firm Arnold and Porter, was one of a handful of panelists who spoke during a Thursday webinar hosted by the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp’s (ATACH) Capital Markets Council. Others included Andrew Kline, a former policy advisor to then-Vice President Joe Biden (D) who’s now at the law firm Perkins Coie, and Adam Goers, a senior vice president at the multi-state marijuana operator The Cannabist Company (formerly Columbia Care).

The group’s mood toward August’s rescheduling recommendation was decidedly upbeat. “I’m really looking forward to this conversation,” Kline said at the start of the event, “and getting people to the place where they understand that this is a really good thing.”

Sklamberg called the possible move “a giant step in the right direction and one that, probably, you know, four years ago, most people would not have foreseen.”

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s Free Speech Stance Is “Dangerous”, Columbia Journalism Fellow Warns

A Columbia University journalism fellow said Elon Musk’s support for free speech on X, formerly known as Twitter, is both “immoral” and “dangerous.”

Anika Navaroli used to work on Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Team,” the unit within the company that censored information, oftentimes true. Musk eliminated the team. She now is a senior fellow at Columbia’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism.

“What has now become clear is that Musk’s vision of speech on X is one of the greatest dangers to democracy, especially leading into the 2024 elections,” Navaroli (pictured) wrote on Thursday in The Hill.

She praised workers like herself for “thanklessly” working behind the scenes to defend “institutions.”

Navoli and her co-workers, in her telling, “were one of the last defenses to American democracy leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 mob attack on Congress” which “led ultimately to our deplatforming former President Donald Trump.”

She wrote:

Much like poll workers, social media trust and safety workers toil thanklessly and behind the scenes for years to protect the safety and integrity of our most vital democratic institutions. Rather than invest in that crucial work, Musk took a page out of Trump’s playbook, repeatedly and publicly attacking trust and safety workers. He unleashed the Twitter Files, which revealed the names, images, and contact information of former Twitter trust and safety employees.

The journalism fellow said speech is “evolving,” “complicated,” and “sticky.”

“It requires tradeoffs, flexibility, and tough decisions. It shouldn’t be dictated by an autocratic CEO with absolutist ideologies,” Navoli wrote, repeating prior statements she has made on the subject.

“Instead of asking just free speech versus safety to say free speech for whom and public safety for whom,” she previously said during a Congressional hearing.

“So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.”

She is correct in that our conceptions of speech are complicated – I do not think there is some broad First Amendment right for the authors of pornographic books targeting kids to have their works in libraries.

Keep reading

Rep. Eric Swalwell Testifies in Case to Keep Trump Off the Ballot

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) testified on Oct. 30 in a trial in Colorado in a case that seeks to keep former President Donald Trump from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.

Mr. Swalwell testified via video conference, describing the events of Jan. 6, 2021, from his perspective. He was in the Capitol when the Electoral College votes were being certified and had “gaveled” the Congress in that day, leading the pledge of allegiance.

“We connected the president’s tweets to our own safety in the chambers,” he said, “and the integrity of the proceedings taking place.”

Attorneys showed him a post on Twitter, now known as X, in which President Trump wrote that Vice President Mike Pence didn’t have the “courage” to give states “a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify.”

“USA demands the truth!” the president wrote.

“We interpreted it as a target had been painted on the Capitol,” Mr. Swalwell said.

Keep reading

RFK Jr. comes out in favor of reparations, carving out lane to Biden’s left

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supports issuing reparations to the black community, making him the most prominent 2024 candidate to favor the controversial policy meant to atone for slavery and legal segregation.

President Biden has largely been silent on the issue, leading to frustration among the far left.

Kennedy — who ditched his Democratic primary challenge to Biden earlier this month — has spoken out in favor of issuing federal dollars to “rebuild black infrastructure” like banks and businesses, and as well as “direct redress payments or tax credits” rather than no-strings cash giveaways.

“Communities that were specifically targeted for destruction need to be specifically targeted for repair,” he states on his campaign website.

“During Jim Crow, Black banks, businesses, hospitals, schools, and farms were targeted for destruction. Racists knew that without these, the Black community had no chance of building wealth. We must set federal dollars aside to rebuild Black infrastructure.”

Keep reading

FBI Denies Targeting Trump Supporters Ahead of 2024 Election

On Thursday, the FBI denied reports that it is targeting Trump supporters ahead of the 2024 presidential elections. 

Newsweek reported Wednesday that the FBI had created a category to evaluate threats known as anti-government and anti-authority violent extremism, which encompasses individuals who are deemed as threats, but don’t fall under anarchist, militia or sovereign citizen groups. 

According to the outlet, more than a dozen current and former anonymous government officials said that the program primarily targets supporters of former President Donald Trump.

In a statement, the FBI denied the existence of this new designation, contesting the report and claiming it was false.  

“Any allegation that the FBI targets individuals solely for their political beliefs is categorically false,” an FBI spokesperson said. “The FBI investigates those who commit acts of violence or threaten violence, and we do not take action based on political belief or any First Amendment protected activity.”

Keep reading

FBI Creates ‘MAGA’ Extremist Category, Targets Trump Supporters Ahead Of 2024 Election

The Biden FBI has ‘quietly created a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump’s army of MAGA followers’ ahead of the 2024 election, according to prolific (and well connected) anti-war journalist and political commentator, William Arkin, who has previously reported on the FBI’s efforts to “Fight MAGA Terrorism.”

In a Wednesday Newsweek article, Arkin reveals that the vast majority of FBI investigations into “anti-government” activities are of Trump supporters.

“The FBI is in an almost impossible position,” a current FBI official told Arkin, who added that the agency’s stated intent is stopping a repeat of January 6th type incidents (which was riddled with feds), while balancing the Constitutional right of Americans to protest the government “Especially at a time when the White House is facing Congressional Republican opposition claiming that the Biden administration has ‘weaponized’ the Bureau against the right wing, it has to tread very carefully,” the official continued.

Newsweek spoke to over a dozen current or former government officials who specialize in terrorism in a three-month investigation to understand the current domestic-security landscape and to evaluate what President Joe Biden‘s administration is doing about what it calls domestic terrorism. Most requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly, were reluctant to stray into partisan politics or feared the repercussions of speaking frankly.

Newsweek has also reviewed secret FBI and Department of Homeland Security data that track incidents, threats, investigations and cases to try to build a better picture. While experts agree that the current partisan environment is charged and uniquely dangerous (with the threat not only of violence but, in the most extreme scenarios, possibly civil war), many also question whether “terrorism” is the most effective way to describe the problem, or that the methods of counterterrorism developed over the past decade in response to Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups constitute the most fruitful way to craft domestic solutions.

We would note that an FBI whistleblower in March claimed that the agency pressured him to inflate domestic terrorism figures against conservatives, and that the agency created a specific threat tag for pro-lifers “THREATSCOTUS2022” following the leaked Supreme Court opinion on abortion (and not a threat tag for the violent leftists who threatened SCOTUS justices?).

The FBI told Newsweek in a statement that: “The threat posed by domestic violent extremists is persistent, evolving, and deadly. The FBI’s goal is to detect and stop terrorist attacks, and our focus is on potential criminal violations, violence and threats of violence. Anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism is one category of domestic terrorism, as well as one of the FBI’s top threat priorities,” adding “We are committed to protecting the safety and constitutional rights of all Americans and will never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity, including a person’s political beliefs or affiliations.”

Keep reading

“He’ll Do It Again”: Hillary Clinton Claims Putin Will Interfere In 2024 Election

Hillary Clinton maintained her assertion of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s interference in American elections, and warned he’ll interfere in the 2024 presidential race “if he has a chance.”

“I don’t think, despite all of the deniers, there’s any doubt that he interfered in our election or that he has interfered in many ways in the internal affairs of other countries—funding political parties, funding, you know, political candidates, buying off, you know, government officials in different places,” Ms. Clinton said in a Sept. 25 interview with MSNBC.

She said Mr. Putin “hates democracy” and hates the West and the United States.

“I fear that the Russians have proved themselves to be quite adept at interfering. And if he has a chance, he’ll do it again,” she said.

Ms. Clinton said that Mr. Putin has determined “he can do two things simultaneously.” First is that Russia can “continue to damage and divide us internally. And he’s quite good at it.”

The 2016 Democrat presidential candidate said that the Russian president has “a lot of apologists and enablers in our own country.” Ms. Clinton believes part of the reason Mr. Putin “worked so hard against me is because he didn’t think that he wanted me in the White House.”

Ms. Clinton insisted that the United States is heading toward fascism.

“We have to reject authoritarianism, we have to reject a kind of creeping fascism, almost, of people who are really ready to turn over their thinking, their votes, to wannabe dictators. And we can’t allow that to proceed.”

Keep reading

Biden’s 2024 Campaign Will Continue Flagging “Misinformation” To Big Tech

The Biden regime’s practice of flagging content for censorship and pressuring platforms to remove content that it deems to be “misinformation” is so pervasive that it’s the subject of a major censorship lawsuit where an appeals court recently ruled that the Biden admin violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

Despite this ruling, Joe Biden’s 2024 presidential campaign plans to continue flagging so-called misinformation to social media platforms, “reaching out” to social media companies, and working with media outlets to “fact-check untruths.”

Additionally, it may target “deepfakes” in states with laws against the technology and use “applicable copyright laws.”

According to POLITICO, Biden’s campaign will hire hundreds of staffers and volunteers to monitor online platforms as part of this effort.

Not only is Biden’s campaign planning to continue engaging in actions similar to those that were flagged by an appeals court for violating the First Amendment, but one of the leaders of the Biden campaign’s effort will be Rob Flaherty, a former White House Digital Director who is a defendant in the First Amendment lawsuit that the appeals court ruled on.

Flaherty is currently a deputy campaign manager for Biden’s 2024 campaign.

Documents that were uncovered as part of the censorship lawsuit against the Biden admin revealed that Flaherty was one of the Biden White House’s most aggressive censorship proponents.

Keep reading