Tag: big tech

Tech billionaire’s alleged depraved double life: Palm Beach ex makes horrific claims about satanic beatings, insomnia-inducing sex acts and pregnancy terminated with violence

At a luxury estate in the rolling hills of Tuscany, Italy, Natalia Chernysheva claims she woke in agony, her body bruised and memory fractured after a night she could not fully recall.

It was November 2020, and she says she had been staying with her then-boyfriend, wealthy tech mogul Serg Bell, at the Renieri di Montalcino estate, a sprawling property surrounded by dense forest and miles from any public road, with only his assistant for company.

Disoriented and searching for answers, she says she turned to the villa’s surveillance system.

‘When I woke up the next day with pain in my body, I remember something very, very bad happened… but I just couldn’t remember,’ she told the Daily Mail in an exclusive interview.

‘So that’s when I checked the cameras.’

What she saw, she claimed, was horrifying. An emotional Chernysheva said: ‘Those pictures… I could see them in my head. But when I saw it captured on the cameras… my hands were shaking.’

The footage allegedly showed Bell grabbing her by the neck and strangling her before stepping back and adopting a martial arts stance. He then moved in again, striking and kicking her as she lay on the floor until she lost consciousness. The Daily Mail has not viewed the footage.

The alleged incident, detailed in a lawsuit filed by Chernysheva against Bell in Florida, was just one of many savage beatings she claims she endured during their six-year relationship.

After the alleged attack, it is claimed in the lawsuit that Bell calmly bent down to tie his shoelaces before walking away, leaving his assistant, who allegedly did not intervene, to lift her onto a couch.

‘That showed me how cruel Serg actually is,’ Chernysheva told the Daily Mail.

In the suit, Chernysheva, 42, alleges Bell, 54, exerted near-total control over her life – monitoring her spending, restricting her movements and isolating her from friends and family while making her financially dependent on him.

The document claims he enforced that control with violence, with the abuse spanning the globe – from Paris to Palm Beach, Singapore and Abu Dhabi.

‘[Bell] made me believe I couldn’t leave because there was nothing beyond him; life is him. He put that in my mind from the beginning.’

The lawsuit describes how she finally decided to break free from the relationship after an alleged attack in 2022 on the day she told Bell she was pregnant after In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), which she claims led to a miscarriage days later.

‘It seems so simple [to leave], but it’s not,’ Chernysheva told the Daily Mail. ‘In reality, it’s the most impossible thing when you are in so deep and trapped with someone.’ 

Bell, born in the Soviet Union and now a Singapore citizen, founded several companies including Swiss cybersecurity firm Acronis, once valued at $4 billion. He stepped down as CEO in 2021 and is no longer associated with the company.

Keep reading

Musk’s xAI Sues Colorado Over AI Law, Saying It Forces Developers to Back State’s Views

An artificial intelligence company founded by Elon Musk filed a lawsuit on April 9 over a Colorado law it claims makes AI developers endorse “Colorado’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion or face significant compliance costs and civil fines.”

xAI, whose flagship product is the chatbot Grok, named Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser as the defendant. The lawsuit states that the law’s provisions “prohibit developers of AI systems from producing speech that the State of Colorado dislikes, while compelling them to conform their speech to a State-enforced orthodoxy on controversial topics of great public concern.” The lawsuit says the Colorado law violates the First Amendment.

Weiser didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit questions the use of the term “algorithmic discrimination” in the law, calling it vague.

The text of the law defines it this way: “Algorithmic discrimination means any condition in which the use of an artificial intelligence system results in unlawful differential treatment or impact that disfavors an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived age, color, disability, ethnicity, genetic information, limited proficiency in the English language, national origin, race, religion, reproductive health, sex, veteran status, or other classification protected under the laws of this state or federal law.”

The bill, SB24-205, was introduced in April 2024, passed the next month, and will take effect on June 30, 2026.

Keep reading

Technate, Ohio: How Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein Built The Silicon Heartland

Early last year, shortly after Donald Trump took office for his second term, former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced he was departing the recently-formed Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E) after reports of conflict with the department’s co-head, Elon Musk. Ramaswamy joined Fox News to clarify these rumors, and to tease his next endeavor –– holding public office. Ramaswamy noted Musk’s approach was “a technology approach,” whereas his was “focused more on a constitutional law, legislative-based approach.” He furthered, “when you’re talking about a constitutional revival, it’s not just done through the federal government, it’s done through federalism, where states also lead the way.” Despite their differences, Ramaswamy importantly remarked that they were both “on the same page” and that their attempts “in saving the country” required them to “divide and conquer.”

Towards the end of the interview, Ramaswamy mentioned he was flying back to Ohio that week, with an announcement regarding his expressed intention of pushing for reform at the state level coming shortly. The former presidential hopeful explained that when “we look at the country over the last 20 years, Silicon Valley was at the bleeding edge of the American economy. I think the Ohio River Valley can be at the bleeding edge of the American economy for the next 20 years.” A few weeks later, Ramaswamy’s gubernatorial campaign for Ohio was announced and the former D.O.G.E. co-head was promptly endorsed by President Trump. Over the course of that campaign, Vivek’s fortunes have quite literally soared. Since launching his campaign, he has not only come to command a massive campaign war chest filled by deep-pocketed donors, but his own net worth has doubled.

While many once labeled this campaign as a clear demotion for Ramaswamy, the reality of an emerging Ohio –– specifically as it relates to the technocratic goals of the Trump administration and its donors –– paints a vastly different picture. As noted in Iain Davis’ book The Technocratic Dark State, D.O.G.E. –– the agency Ramaswamy co-led –– is part of a larger effort led largely by a small group of the ultra-wealthy to completely privatize the public sector in the name of greater “efficiency” and have it ruled by “techno-kings” or dictator “CEOs.” Davis frames this as a modern iteration of technocracy, bolstered by tech billionaires with close ties to the Trump administration, such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Thiel is the long-time benefactor of former Ohio Congressmen and current Vice President J.D. Vance. Notably, Ohio’s richest man Leslie Wexner, along with help from the infamous Jeffrey Epstein (a Thiel associate), has spent decades creating “partnerships” where private interests, including those he directly controls, dominate its state and local governments. In some cases, such as the Columbus suburb of New Albany, they have completely replaced them.

Quietly over the last decade, Ohio has become a state of incredible national importance, as it continues to attract data centers from American “royalty” and Big Tech stalwarts into its friendly regulatory borders. But long before Amazon, Meta, Anduril, Microsoft and others took their power-hungry –– literally and figuratively –– refuge in the Buckeye State, the most well-known financier of Jeffrey Epstein, Leslie Wexner, and his extensive crime-linked network were laying the foundation for the new Silicon Valley, now known as the Silicon Heartland, along the Ohio River.

Wexner’s own statements last year underscore Ohio’s coming importance in the age of ascendant, AI-powered technocracy. Last May, he stated that Columbus in particular would soon become an international AI destination. He also asserted that “probably the largest AI investment in the world will happen in Columbus.” Wexner would know, as he’s personally responsible for Ohio’s –– specifically Columbus’ –– rise as one of the most important AI hubs in the country.

Yet, Wexner, with Epstein’s help, has done much more than attract massive AI data centers to the state. As this investigation will show, Wexner and his closest allies, Epstein among them, worked to create a model for the takeover of local governments via public-private partnership, starting first in New Albany beginning in the late 1980s. It has since spread to cover the entire state of Ohio via a network of public-private partnerships Wexner helped create. This system has allowed Wexner to use billions of dollars of Ohio taxpayer money, with little to no public scrutiny, to finance what can only be described as a massive welfare system for corporations. Among that system’s current biggest beneficiaries are Wexner’s New Albany Company as well as massive Big Tech corporations with important ties to Jeffrey Epstein (e.g. Amazon and Google). Meanwhile, regular Ohioans are seeing their power bills jump, provoking an affordability crisis in the state, while funding for public schools, libraries and healthcare is cut dramatically –– all to keep the corporate welfare engine designed by Wexner running full tilt.

Keep reading

UK’s New Pandemic Plan Would Turn Big Tech Into a Mass Location Tracking Network

Britain’s new £1 billion ($1.3m) pandemic strategy treats a future outbreak as a “certainty” and proposes building a contact tracing system that would feed on real-time location data harvested with the help of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies.

The plan, published by the Department of Health and Social Care, also calls for PPE stockpiles, new emergency legislation, and a biosecurity research hub in Essex.

But the centerpiece that deserves the most scrutiny is the contact tracing proposal, which would create a surveillance architecture designed to track the movements of millions of people, ready to switch on at a moment’s notice.

The UKHSA will run the new system, which the strategy document says will use “live location data” and artificial intelligence to provide “a more rapid, large-scale detection and alert system during pandemics.”

The agency plans to “explore options to work with ‘big tech’” to build it, with deployment targeted for 2030. The government is pre-building a location surveillance system in partnership with companies whose entire business model depends on harvesting as much personal data as possible.

The strategy doesn’t name which companies, what data-sharing agreements would look like, or what happens to your location history once the pandemic ends.

The UK government has already tracked its own citizens through their phones without telling them. A 2021 report by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviors (SPI-B) revealed that government-funded researchers tracked one in ten people in Britain via their mobile phones in February of that year, without the users’ knowledge or permission.

Researchers used cell phone mobility data to select over 4,200 vaccinated individuals, then monitored them through 40 call data records with corresponding location observations. The data was used for behavioral analysis, tracking radius of movement on vaccination day, whether people visited businesses during opening hours, and whether they went straight home afterwards. None of this was made public at the time.

When the tracking came to light, a spokesperson for Big Brother Watch said citizens would be “disturbed to discover they were unwittingly tracked and subjected to behavioral analysis via their phones.”

“No one expects that by going to get a vaccine they will be tracked and monitored by their own Government,” the spokesperson said. “This is deeply chilling and could be extremely damaging to public trust in medical confidentiality. Between looming Covid passports and vaccine phone surveillance, this Government is turning Britain into a Big Brother state under the cover of Covid. This should be a wake up call to us all.”

The government’s defense was that the data was collected at cell tower level, not the individual level, and that it was “GDPR-compliant” data provided by a company that “collected, cleaned, and anonymized” it.

Keep reading

Children’s Health Defense Wins Settlement in Landmark Censorship Case

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized a settlement in CHD’s landmark class action censorship lawsuit against key Biden administration officials accused of colluding with tech companies to censor social media content.

In a press release, the DOJ cited President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order “acknowledging that ‘the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.’ 90 Fed. Reg. 8243 (Jan. 28, 2025).”

CHD, along with its then-Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sued the Biden administration in March 2023.

The lawsuit, Kennedy v. Biden, became CHD v. Trump after Trump became president of the U.S., and Kennedy, who first left CHD to run his own presidential campaign, was later named secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration.

The class action lawsuit against then-President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top administration officials and federal agencies alleged they “waged a systematic, concerted campaign” to compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.

Jed Rubenfeld, attorney for CHD, called the settlement a “tremendous win” against government censorship.

“We brought this case years ago to challenge the Biden administration’s assault on free speech,” Rubenfeld said. “Today, the government, under a new administration, acknowledged that assault. And via a previously issued Executive Order, the president prohibited government officials from pressuring social media companies in the future to trample on Americans’ First Amendment rights.”

As part of the settlement with CHD, the government agreed to pay attorneys’ fees.

The DOJ also settled a similar lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, and issued a consent decree in the case.

Keep reading

The Age Verification Con

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are competing to look tough on Silicon Valley. They hold hearings, write bills, and pose for photographs with parents who say their kids’ lives were ruined by social media algorithms they somehow couldn’t pull them away from.

The cause is protecting children from social media, and it supposedly polls so well that it has achieved something almost unheard of in modern politics: genuine bipartisan consensus. Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Labour and Conservatives in Westminster. The Australian parliament voted the whole thing through with barely a whisper of dissent.

There is just one problem with the narrative. The tech giants these politicians claim to be fighting are spending record sums to help them do it. And the tool they have all converged on, age verification, is not really about checking whether someone is 15 or 16. It is the architecture for a verified internet, one where anonymous access is replaced by identity checkpoints, and where using a social media account, downloading an app, or browsing a website requires you to show your papers first.

The campaign is presented as protecting children. The infrastructure being built will apply to everyone.

Keep reading

Trump Appoints Big Tech Elites to New Advisory Board

President Donald Trump has formally populated his President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), a body created by executive order just days into his second term. The names now attached to it represent a tightly interconnected network of global tech power long associated with the most nefarious elements of the globalist agenda, technocratic thinking, transhumanist ambitions, disdain for constitutional norms, and having extensive ties to the Deep State and entities such as the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The council will be advising the president on everything from the economy and education to national security.

The public reaction was immediate. “Is Bill Gates next for being rewarded?” is one of the most widely shared reactions, capturing the outrage surrounding the appointments.

The Council

Trump signed the order establishing PCAST early in his second term. The document framed technological dominance as a national-security imperative.

It states that emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and biotechnology “have the potential to reshape the global balance of power.” It calls for “unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance.”

The order warns that science has been corrupted by “ideological dogmas” and calls for restoring a “pursuit of truth.” That mandate, apparently, will be carried out by a council drawn heavily from the same corporate and technological structures that already shape public reality, and whose leading figures openly promote their own ideological dogmas rooted in the technocratic model of governance by “experts.” In practice, this concentrates decision-making power among a small oligarchic group controlling the digital systems that organize modern life and, by extension, the behavior of the masses. (The ideology is also referred to as “Dark Enlightenment.”)

The structure of the council mirrors the corporate model. The assistant to the president for science and technology (APST) and the special advisor for AI and crypto serve as members and co-chairs. If also serving as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the APST may designate the U.S. chief technology officer (CTO) as a member. The remaining members are appointed by the president from outside the federal government and are described as “distinguished individuals” from industry, academia, and related sectors.

The new technocratic board can include up to 24 members. The scope of their “advice” is broad:

The PCAST shall advise the President on matters involving science, technology, education, and innovation policy.  The Council shall also provide the President with scientific and technical information that is needed to inform public policy relating to the American economy, the American worker, national and homeland security, and other topics.

The concept of PCAST is not new. Presidents have convened similar advisory bodies for decades. The structure dates back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Science Advisory Board in 1933.

The List

The list of “the Nation’s foremost luminaries in science and technology” who will be advising the president includes:

  • Marc Andreessen
  • Sergey Brin
  • Safra Catz
  • Michael Dell
  • Jacob DeWitte
  • Fred Ehrsam
  • Larry Ellison
  • David Friedberg
  • Jensen Huang
  • John Martinis
  • Bob Mumgaard
  • Lisa Su
  • Mark Zuckerberg

Each has played a defining role in building the digital systems that now underpin communication, commerce, and governance.

Keep reading

Government Agencies BANNED From Pressuring Big Tech to Censor Americans for 10 Years

In a historic win for free speech, the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have been legally restricted from pressuring social media companies to silence Americans for the next decade. This comes from a formal Consent Decree in Missouri v. Biden, one of the most consequential First Amendment cases in modern history.

The agreement itself is striking. It acknowledges that, in recent years, federal officials “exerted substantial coercive pressure” on social media companies to suppress speech they did not approve of. This case began after physicians, journalists, and everyday Americans—especially those dissenting on COVID and elections—were systematically censored online. This was confirmed through discovery: a coordinated, government-backed effort to pressure Big Tech into silencing alternative viewpoints.

Now, under this decree, these entities are prohibited from threatening, coercing, or directing platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube, and others to remove or suppress lawful speech—including through algorithmic means. These restrictions will remain in place for 10 years.

Perhaps most important, the agreement explicitly states that labeling speech as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation” does not strip it of First Amendment protection.

This is one of the most significant blows yet to the censorship regime.

Keep reading

Jury in Los Angeles finds Meta, YouTube negligent in social media addiction trial

A jury in Los Angeles determined on Wednesday that Meta and Google’s YouTube were negligent and failed to warn users of the dangers associated with using their platforms, in a case that could have repercussions across the social media and the broader technology market.

The personal injury trial commenced in late January in Los Angeles Superior Court. A young woman identified as K.G.M., or Kaley, alleged that she became addicted to apps like Instagram and YouTube as a child. Deliberations began Friday, March 13.

Jurors ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who claimed that Meta and YouTube’s negligence played a “substantial factor” in causing mental health-related harms. Compensatory damages were assessed at $3 million, with Meta on the hook for 70% and YouTube the remaining 30%. The next phase of the trial will determine punitive damages.

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

It’s one of several trials taking place this year that experts have characterized as the social media industry’s “Big Tobacco” moment, comparing it the 1990s, when tobacco companies were forced to pay billions of dollars for lying to the public about the safety and potential harms of their products.

On Tuesday, jurors in Santa Fe, New Mexico found that Meta willfully violated the state’s unfair practices after Attorney General Raúl Torrez alleged that the company failed to properly safeguard its apps from online predators targeting children. Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in damages based on the number of violations. The company said that it would appeal the case.

The New Mexico case is separate from other social media lawsuits that state attorneys general have brought against companies including Meta and TikTok.

During the six-week trial in L.A., jury members were tasked with determining whether Meta and YouTube implemented certain design features in their apps like recommendation algorithms and auto-play that contributed to K.G.M.’s crippling, mental distress. The 20-year-old woman alleged that she suffered from severe body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts due to her near-constant use of the apps and the constant notifications that made it difficult for her to stop.

Keep reading

Meta ordered to pay $375 MILLION for not protecting minors from predators online

A jury has found that Meta failed to protect children from sexual predators as well as misled users, and the tech giant has been ordered to pay $375 million in civil penalties.

A New Mexico jury found in the landmark case that Meta misled users about the platform’s safety and did not protect children being exploited, thereby violating the state’s laws. The jury made the decision after there were testimonies from witnesses over the course of six weeks. Witnesses included ex-executives from Meta, teachers, as well as online safety experts, per the New York Post.

The prosecutors in the state argued that Meta had hidden the extent to which the platform endangered children with the threat of sexual predators using the social media platform to target minors. Facebook and Instagram failed to enforce their policies of those under 13 not having profiles and algorithms allegedly made it easier to target minors for sex trafficking and harassment.

“The safety issues that you’ve heard about in this case, weren’t mistakes,” New Mexico attorney Linda Singer said on Monday. “They were a product of a corporate philosophy that chose growth and engagement over children’s safety. And young people in this state and around the country have borne the cost.”

Meta has vowed to appeal to the ruling in the case. “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” a spokesman said in a statement in response to the verdict.

The attorneys for New Mexico had been seeking $2 billion in penalties against Meta, significantly more than what was given as a penalty to Meta. The case was brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. In closing arguments, Meta attorney Kevin Huff said of the case, “Meta has built innovative, automated tools to protect people. Meta has 40,000 people working to make its apps as safe as possible.”

Keep reading