Tag: censorship

At COP30, Countries Sign First-ever Declaration to Control Info on Climate

Germany, France, Canada, and Belgium are among 12 nations that signed on to the “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change,” documenting the so-called “threats” that free speech and the free press pose to what U.S. President Donald Trump refers to as the climate “con job.”

Signed at the United Nations’ COP30, the UN’s annual climate confab, the declaration marks the first time that “information integrity” has been on the docket for COP’s Action Agenda.

The rise of independent media, social media, and the internet has created a source of non-establishment news that has elevated legitimate criticism of the so-called man-made climate-change agenda.

Rather than addressing concerns about the UN’s horrible track record of climate predictions, the failure of “green” energy, and the astounding hypocrisy of climate evangelists’ jet-setting across the globe in private jets emitting mass amounts of carbon, the UN has instead turned to censorship and narrative control.

Defeating the “Obscurantists”

In the opening address at COP30, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva targeted anyone who dares to question the man-made climate-agenda.

“In the era of disinformation, obscurantists reject not only scientific evidence but also the progress of multilateralism. They control algorithms, sow hatred, and spread fear. They attack institutions, science, and universities. It is time to once again defeat the denialists,” he said.

Arguing that “obscurantists” control algorithms beggars belief. In fact, it is the UN that has openly admitted to rigging algorithms with Google to prioritize UN narratives regarding climate change.

“We partnered with Google,” said Melissa Fleming, the UN’s under-secretary-general for global communications. “For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources.”

Fleming revealed that the collaboration started when UN officials were “shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top.”

Pushing Propaganda

But how will the UN “defeat the denialists” who are allegedly controlling the narrative? First, the declaration acknowledges the necessity of narrative control to continue the UN’s climate doomsaying:

[We are] concerned by the growing impact of disinformation, misinformation, denialism, deliberate attacks on environmental journalists, defenders, scientists, researchers and other public voices and other tactics used to undermine the integrity of information on climate change, which diminish public understanding, delay urgent action, and threaten the global climate response and societal stability.

The signatory nations also refer to the Global Digital Compact, adopted by UN members at the Summit of the Future in 2024, which sets forth a global framework for digital cooperation for artificial intelligence, controlling algorithms, and digital control.

Encouraging policies that will bolster climate propaganda at both the international and local level is crucial, the declaration states.

Through promoting and supporting the “sustainability of a diverse and resilient media ecosystem,” the signatory nations affirm that the man-made climate-change narrative cannot survive scrutiny without “equitable access to accurate, consistent, evidence-based, and understandable information on climate change for all stakeholders.”

Keep reading

Brussels Aims at WhatsApp in the Next Round of Speech Control

Meta’s WhatsApp platform is set to come under tighter European oversight as regulators prepare to bring its “channels” feature under the European Union’s far-reaching censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), the same framework that already pressures Facebook and Instagram.

According to Bloomberg, people familiar with the matter say the European Commission has informed Meta that WhatsApp’s channels are being prepared for designation as a “Very Large Online Platform.”

That classification carries extensive responsibilities for content censorship. Although no public date has been announced, the Commission’s notice indicates that WhatsApp will soon face some of the most demanding digital rules in the world.

Channels, which allow public updates from news outlets, public figures, and organizations, function more like social media feeds than private chats.

WhatsApp reported earlier this year that these channels reached around 46.8 million users in Europe by late 2024, slightly above the DSA’s 45 million-user threshold for stricter oversight.

Once a service crosses that line, it must perform regular assessments of how illegal or “harmful” content circulates and develop strategies to limit its spread. Platforms are also required to publish user figures twice a year and risk fines of up to 6 percent of global revenue for failing to comply.

The DSA does not apply to private, encrypted communication, so WhatsApp’s core messaging service will remain unaffected.

Still, the EU’s decision to expand its regulatory reach into new areas of online conversation has caused concern that these rules could burden companies and discourage open dialogue in the name of safety.

The European Commission has remained cautious about providing details, saying only that it “cannot confirm the timeline for a potential future designation.”

For Meta, the move adds another chapter to its ongoing disputes with European regulators.

Keep reading

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.

Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.

At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”

The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.

One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.

The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”

Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”

In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.

The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.

Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”

The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organisations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”

In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.

Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.

The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”

Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.

Keep reading

EU to establish ‘Ministry of Truth’ – Guardian

The European Union is planning to launch a centralized hub for monitoring and countering what it calls foreign “disinformation,” according to a leaked document seen by the Guardian. Critics have long warned that Brussels’ initiatives amount to the institutionalization of a censorship regime.

According to the European Commission proposal, set to be published on November 12, the so-called Centre for Democratic Resilience will function as part of a broader “democracy shield” strategy, pitched by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen ahead of the 2024 European elections.

Participation in the center will be voluntary, and the Commission has welcomed “like-minded partners” outside the bloc, including the UK and countries seeking accession.

The draft accuses Russia of escalating “hybrid attacks” by disseminating false narratives, while also pointing to China as another threat – alleging that Beijing uses PR firms and social media influencers to advance its interests across Europe.

Keep reading

‘All they did was wear wristbands!’ Judges question school district’s ban on ‘XX’ at girls’ games

Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island risk becoming hotbeds of censorship by school districts if the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals construes perceived offense as harassment. School districts risk massive liability for harassment if it does not.

Lawyers for censored parents and New Hampshire’s Bow School District laid out alternate visions of legal calamity to a three-judge panel of the Boston-based court at a hearing Wednesday on the constitutionality of Bow banning “XX” wristbands, a silent form of advocacy for female-only sports, from school athletic events.

Parents and a grandparent sued the district more than a year ago, after it threatened to arrest them at a Sept. 17, 2024, girls’ soccer game featuring a male player for not removing their wristbands, which refer to the female chromosome pair, and issued no-trespass orders. Bow set up a “protest zone” for critics of male inclusion soon after the suit was filed. 

Their passive protest shortly followed a federal judge blocking The Free State’s law that “prohibits biological males from participating in female athletics,” an injunction that applied only to the male athletes who sued, not every male who identifies as a girl.

A district judge nominated by President George H.W. Bush rejected a preliminary injunction against Bow this spring, claiming the wristbands send a “demeaning and harassing” message to males who identify as girls and participate in girls’ sports.

Wednesday’s oral argument suggested the panel might buck the 1st Circuit’s reputation as a rubber stamp for schools on gender identity, frequently leaving Bow School District lawyer Jonathan Shirley seeming to stumble for answers that would satisfy their questions.

Another panel upheld a school district’s ban on a student wearing an “Only Two Genders” shirt because it “assertedly demeans characteristics of personal identity” even if done “passively, silently, and without mentioning any specific students.” Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas blasted their colleagues for not accepting that case.

One of Wednesday’s panel members, Judge Julie Rikelman, served on another that upheld a school district’s practice of hiding students’ identification as the opposite sex from their parents. President Biden nominated Rikelman, who argued to preserve federal abortion rights in Dobbs, a month after SCOTUS ruled against her abortion-clinic client.

The 1st Circuit was the only federal appeals court until recently without any active GOP-nominated judges, which Reuters reported has made its lower courts “magnets for lawsuits challenging Trump’s agenda by Democratic state attorneys general and advocacy groups.” The Senate confirmed President Trump nominee Joshua Dunlap on Tuesday.

Wednesday’s panel included two judges with senior status, meaning they are allowed to handle a reduced caseload compared to active judges: Jeffrey Howard, nominated by President George W. Bush, and Sandra Lynch, by President Clinton.

Keep reading

Telegram Pushes Back as Australia’s Online Censorship Battle Heats Up

Australia’s continuing clash over online speech has deepened after the Federal Court ordered Telegram to define the limits of its lawsuit against eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant by November 7.

The directive followed complaints from the regulator that Telegram had widened its challenge beyond what it originally filed, introducing new arguments at a late stage.

The dispute centers on the controversial Online Safety Act 2021, which gives the eSafety Commissioner broad authority to demand information from online platforms about their handling of “harmful” content and to impose penalties for non-compliance.

Telegram is challenging both the Commissioner’s authority under that law and the A$957,780 ($622k) fine issued earlier this year after it allegedly missed a reporting deadline.

In March 2024, eSafety issued notices to six major technology companies, including Google, Meta, X, Reddit, WhatsApp, and Telegram.

The notices required detailed reports about how each company was combating material connected to “terror and violent extremism” and demanded responses within 49 days.

According to eSafety, Telegram failed to comply within that timeframe, leading to the fine on February 24, 2025.

Telegram has rejected both the fine and the regulator’s jurisdiction.

The company argues that it is not a “provider of social-media services” under the law and therefore cannot be bound by Section 56(2), which authorizes eSafety to compel cooperation from social media or electronic service providers.

Telegram also claims that it never received the March 2024 notice because it was sent to an incorrect address in Dubai and to unrelated email inboxes. The company maintains that it only learned of the request in late August 2024 and still provided responses in October “in circumstances where it was not compelled to do so.”

During a recent hearing, eSafety’s lawyer Philip Solomon said Telegram had suddenly expanded its case to challenge not only the legality of the reporting notice but also the fine itself.

Keep reading

UK Lords Debate Impact of VPNs on Censorship Laws

It began as a plan to “keep children safe online.” It has become a national realization about how far the government can reach into the digital lives of its citizens.

The UK’s Online Safety Act has turned into a case study in how a law written for protection can give no protection and end up with mass surveillance.

When peers in the House of Lords met this week to examine its effects, they sounded little like guardians of youth safety, and it was easy to tell they don’t have enough self-awareness to realize they’ve helped unleash a monster.

Lord Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat technology spokesperson, noted that young people are already avoiding the law’s controls.

VPNs, he said, are now used on a “widespread” scale, which “risks rendering age-assurance measures ineffective.”

The statement revealed a central problem: the people being protected are already finding their way around the digital ID rules. They always will.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales expressed the issue plainly. Calling the Act “very poorly thought-out legislation,” he told The House magazine: “We will not be age-gating Wikipedia under any circumstances, so, if it comes to that, it’s going to be an interesting showdown, because we’re going to just refuse to do it. Politically, what are they going to do? They could block Wikipedia. Good luck with that.”

Wales’s refusal is part of a natural broader discomfort with the idea of regulating access to information through identification.

Under the new law, platforms must verify users’ ages through ID checks or similar systems. Millions of users will have to prove their identity before they can post or browse. Privacy groups describe this as a national identity program introduced without open debate.

With data breaches still frequent across both government and corporate systems, the setup creates an environment where every login carries potential exposure.

VPN use has increased in response. These tools, once associated with cybersecurity professionals, now serve anyone who prefers to maintain privacy online. They allow people to move through the internet without revealing personal data.

Keep reading

Killing the Canada Goose

Canada’s conservative outlet Juno News depicts Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as an incompetent, narcissistic leader who has done nothing to improve our country’s image on the world stage or to legislate for solvency and freedom of expression in the domestic realm. He is now at the helm of a faltering country that has little hope of struggling back on its feet.

Indeed, it is hard not to suspect that Carney and his Liberals, like the sinister Democrats in the U.S., are driven by a double agenda against the welfare of their own citizens: to deprive them of their political rights and freedoms via legislative and policy initiatives on the one hand, and to render them destitute by eviscerating the economy on the other. These actions are almost certainly deliberate.

As United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, Carney crafted global carbon-pricing initiatives, describing carbon taxes as the “linchpin of responsible climate governance.” His book Value(s) leaves no doubt respecting his globalist and green-industrial objectives at the cost of national sovereignty. 

Now he is bruiting several market-driven changes to his preferred agenda to ensure popular support, but still claims “I’m the same me. I’m focused on the same issues…What we need to do is to be as effective as possible in terms of addressing climate change while growing our economy.” It has been proven worldwide that you can’t do both. The dogma of climate change kills not only the climate, the environment, the water table, and the avian cohort. It destroys the economy as well.

As a Western Standard commenter writes, “Despite Canada slipping into third world economic status, Carney’s first proposed bills deal with censorship and control of people’s speech/internet posts. That really says where his priority lies. Carney will go down in history as the last Canadian prime minister presiding over 10 provinces and 3 territories.” Or the first Canadian prime minister ruling over a garrison regime.

Carney, the technocratic, oxymoronic, inept globalist banker, who capered into the Liberal leadership, is thus serving up reheated Trudeau goop — more debt, more bureaucracy, more excuses, more anti-pipeline propaganda, more affordability crunch, more Keynesian spending-and-borrowing, and more anti-Trump invective, all of which has led to what plainly appears to be intentional national failure. Canada is merely his laboratory to test his theories for national implosion. Regarding Carney’s first six months in office, Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre has summed up the outcomes thus far, posting that “after six months, everything is worse. Crime, tariffs, inflation, deficits, immigration, housing — all spiralling out of control.” The plan is working. 

The key element in his program is to strip away individual rights so that Canadians will be censored and restrained in “a digital gulag” where a series of bills he is proposing—Bill C-8 on cybersecurity, Bill C-9 on combating hate, and Bill C-2 on presumably secure borders—are currently making their way through parliament.

The intention is made to sound noble but is really as black as an old kettle’s arse. Bill C-8 can cut off phone and internet service to political dissidents and opponents of the realm without a court order, depriving them of personal and political access to information and leaving them effaced from “the conversation.” Bill C-9 allows the government to prosecute for “hate crimes,” which have no strict definition and are completely arbitrary, erasing freedom of expression in the public square; people can be arrested for something that hasn’t yet been said or for hurting someone’s feelings. Bill C-2 enables government to open mail parcels and computer files without a warrant. John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has argued that  “Canada will be a police state by Christmas if Parliament passes Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9 in their current form.”

Keep reading

Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship

A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.”

He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure.

“Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.”

He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”

Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction.

“While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.”

He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube.

But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.”

Keep reading