Tag: censorship

X Complies with Over 8,000 Indian Government Censorship Orders, Blocks News and User Accounts

The X Global Government Affairs team has revealed that the social company has received over 8,000 censorship orders from the Indian government, affecting access in that country to entire accounts.

We obtained a copy of the memo for you here.

Among them are executive orders to block accounts of international news organizations and prominent X users, the post said, adding that the company will comply by “withholding” those accounts only in India.

Other platforms have also received the same orders but have yet to comment on the issue.

According to the post, the decision was not an easy one to make but X views it as necessary in order for the platform to continue its presence in India.

Noncompliance with the orders could have resulted in “significant fines” and even imprisonment of local employees, X announced.

It is further explained that the Indian government’s orders do not state which individual posts were found in violation of the country’s law, opting rather to demand that entire accounts must be blocked.

“For a significant number of accounts, we did not receive any evidence or justification to block (them),” Global Affairs writes.

Even though the decision has been made to comply with the orders at this time, X made it clear the company “disagrees” and views the blocking of accounts rather than individual allegedly offending posts as not only “unnecessary” but also a form of censorship that affects both existing and future content, in that way violating users’ right to free speech.

Having complied in order to stay in the market, X is now “exploring all possible legal avenues available to the company.”

The Global Affairs post is urging affected users who are located in India, to turn to the courts in a bid to have the orders overturned – since they, unlike X, have this option. Those users are also reminded they can contact the government directly.

X lists a number of legal aid organizations that those with blocked accounts can consider contacting, and explains the decision to go public with some details about the censorship orders as “essential for transparency” – while “lack of disclosure discourages accountability and can contribute to arbitrary decision making.”

Keep reading

Where The Money Went: USG Funding To Counter-Mis/Disinformation Initiatives

Last week, my non-profit liber-net unveiled a new database of US government awards to mis-dis-and-malinformation (MDM) and other content control initiatives. A previous Network Affects post broke down where that money came from. This one details where the money went, specifically the countries, regions, topics, and activities, and the top organisations that took home the cash.

The below graphs are based on 867 awards made between 2016-2024, out of nearly 1,100 that we reviewed from 2010 to the present day. You can review our process and methodology here. You can see all the graphs from the last post, this post, and a few more here.

When it comes to MDM funding, the vast majority of the awards went to US-based initiatives. The graph below includes a contract totaling nearly $1 billion to military contractor Peraton, but even without it, US recipients received around $318 million, dwarfing the next country, Kazakhstan, at $20 million. Out of the nearly $1.5 billion spent across the 867 awards, around $187 million left the US from a roughly $6.7 trillion annual federal budget.

The “US taxpayers are wasting money on foreigners” narrative isn’t the story here, at least not in the mis/disinformation space.

Keep reading

India Poised to Approve Starlink, Provided It Supports User Surveillance and Content Censorship

India’s Ministry of Communications has issued a memorandum that details the conditions under which the country’s authorities would approve licenses to Starlink and other Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite (GMPCS) companies.

A set of rules required of these operators is interpreted in some reports as an obligation to agree to facilitate surveillance and censorship.

At the same time, it is acknowledged that most countries impose similar rules – but the memo and its provisions are above all framed as a test for Starlink owner, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, and his commitment to free speech.

Starlink has shown interest in entering the Indian market and has service resale deals with two of the country’s largest telecommunications firms. But making those deals operational depends on being granted a license, with the memorandum now explaining the 29 conditions that companies must meet.

GMPCS operators will have to ensure security clearance for gateway/hub location in India, as well as that functionality such as lawful interception facility, monitoring/control facility of user terminals, data traffic routing, etc., are located in the country.

Unregistered terminals will be immediately disconnected, while those registered for one location and then moved will be locked.

“Rogue for malicious activities” terminals are to be blocked without delay.

During hostilities, those issued GMPCS licenses must be able to restrict or deny service either based on specific geo-locations or to individuals or groups of subscribers.

Another requirement is to set up special monitoring zones 50 kilometers within the land borders and the exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles).

Keep reading

Spain Blackouts Prompt EU Push for More Censorship Under “Preparedness Strategy” Citing “Disinformation” Threats

These days, no event, incident, or occasion, regardless of its nature, appears to be too big or too small to use as an excuse to promote more censorship in the name of “combating disinformation.”

Last week, Spain and Portugal lived through an embarrassing episode of widespread electricity blackouts – and the current consensus is that the reason is even more embarrassing: old infrastructure, fraught with its own problems – that are only compounded by endless attempts to work “green” energy sources into it.

Trillions of dollars is the figure that experts are mentioning as needed to get the EU’s electricity grid up to speed – or rather, balance the reality with the aggressive “progressive” policy pushes so that a similar crisis is averted going forward.

But a conversation about these topics is apparently a hard one to have for the EU bureaucracy.

Instead, it, through the mouth of Commissioner for Preparedness, Crisis Management and Equality Hadja Lahbib, prefers to effectively misguide, and deflect away from that, and onto the key talking points that are sure to provoke a sense of paranoia among citizens: cyberattacks and supply chain disruptions (as a result of this type of threats).

In other words – instead of addressing actual problem(s), the focus is being shifted to how information around them should be best managed, to somehow score public opinion points.

Speaking for Spain’s El Mundo, Lahbib mentioned the EU Preparation Strategy, and the Union Strategy for Preparation – apparently, her “shorthand” for the formal, and oddly phrased, “EU Preparedness Union Strategy.”

It is a set of measures meant to “counter foreign information manipulation and disinformation more systematically” by fully using the EU’s Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) toolbox, the censorship law Digital Services Act (DSA), and the censorship initiative – the upcoming European Democracy Shield.

Keep reading

Maine Lawmaker Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Speech Ban

A Maine legislator has turned to the US Supreme Court after being effectively stripped of her ability to represent her constituents over a controversial social media post. Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, who serves District 90, submitted an emergency request to the high court this week, seeking to overturn a disciplinary action imposed by her fellow lawmakers that has barred her from voting or speaking on the House floor since February.

The dispute stems from a Facebook post Libby made criticizing the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a statewide girls’ pole vault competition.

The post included a mention of a Maine student and questioned the fairness of allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports categories, a stance that ignited outrage among Democratic legislators. In response, the House voted to censure Libby and conditioned her return to full legislative participation on an apology she had refused to give.

Rather than comply, Libby launched a legal fight to restore her role, arguing the punishment amounted to unconstitutional retaliation. After lower courts refused to intervene, she is now asking the Supreme Court to address what she sees as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a denial of her constituents’ right to representation.

We obtained a copy of the application for you here.

“For over 60 days my constituents have had no say in any actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives,” she wrote in a post on X. “Every vote taken on the floor of the legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silenced and disenfranchised.”

Libby emphasized that the case raises serious concerns about the limits of legislative authority when it comes to penalizing elected officials for their speech.

Keep reading

“Male Supremacism Studies Conference” Advocates Aggressive Deplatforming to Suppress Dissent, Criticized for Promoting Censorship Over Dialogue

At the Male Supremacism Studies Conference, held by the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism (IRMS), some of the most extreme calls for censorship yet emerged from figures who see open digital discourse as a problem to be solved, not a value to protect.

Virginia Commonwealth University professor Dr. Kay Coghill and Patrick Hermansson, a senior researcher for the UK-based group Hope Not Hate, openly pushed for aggressive deplatforming as a means of silencing dissenting viewpoints, particularly those labeled as conservative or “supremacist.”

Dr. Karlyn Borysenko, an independent journalist and commentator, attended the conference to document what she describes as a deliberate effort to suppress opposing political views under the banner of “combating extremism.” What she observed was not a nuanced discussion about violence or threats, but rather an open endorsement of censorship as a political weapon.

Coghill, speaking candidly at the event, declared, “I think a solution that will really disrupt capitalism, honestly, is de-platforming people and making specific websites, forums, whatever, illegal and actually having consequences, material consequences.”

She went on to emphasize the need to cut access to digital platforms entirely: “making sure people do not have access to these social media websites and forums that allow them to perpetuate and push this information in digital spaces, because that’s where the youth is getting this information from.”

Coghill also criticized Elon Musk’s decision to reinstate previously banned figures on X, such as President Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos, suggesting that once individuals are removed, they should stay removed, permanently.

Patrick Hermansson, representing Hope Not Hate, a group that openly champions deplatforming, conceded that while this tactic remains central to their mission, its effectiveness is waning. “I spent my whole career doing deplatforming. It’s like the core strategy we do,” he stated.

But as platforms multiply and decentralize, he acknowledged, “they have their own platforms and … it’s very hard to control them.” He lamented the lack of pressure on major social media companies to continue aggressive bans and noted the growing financial and technical independence of those targeted by such efforts.

Keep reading

WHOA! Marco Rubio Announces He Has Located Dossiers Created by Biden Regime to CENSOR Americans Including Trump Officials: “There’s at Least One Person at This Table Today Who Had a Dossier On Them”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio dropped a bombshell today that should frighten every conservative nationwide.

As The Gateway Pundit’s Jordan Conradson reported, President Trump and his team held a cabinet meeting Wednesday. Team Trump spent a good portion of the meeting touting the president’s impressive record on issues ranging from immigration to the economy.

But amid the celebration, Rubio mentioned some disturbing information. He revealed that Biden’s Department of State had created dossiers with the full intention of spying on the content and censoring Americans’ free speech rights.

‘We had an office in the Department of State whose job it was to censor Americans,” Rubio said.

Then, he dropped another bombshell. At least one of the people affected was at the table.

“And by the way, there is at least one person at this table today who had a dossier on them in that building of social media posts to identify them as purveyors of disinformation,” Rubio revealed. “We are going to be turning over these dossiers to these individuals.”

Keep reading

Report: FBI Agent Elvis Chan, Key Figure in 2020 Election Censorship Scheme, Placed on Terminal Leave

FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Elvis Chan, one of the central figures in the federal government’s censorship of conservative voices during the 2020 presidential election, has reportedly been placed on terminal leave.

The development was first reported by independent journalist Breanna Morello.

Chan, who served as the FBI’s key liaison between the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and Big Tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, was instrumental in a government-led censorship campaign to silence conservative voices and suppress damaging information about Hunter Biden in the lead-up to the election.

Morello, citing sources familiar with Chan’s situation, reports that the longtime San Francisco-based agent has not accessed any of his government devices for over a month.

Chan still lists himself as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge on his LinkedIn page, which includes preferred pronouns — “he/him.”

The House Judiciary Committee filed a lawsuit against FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Elvis Chan last year for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena tied to the 2020 election censorship scandal.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, lays out damning allegations: that Chan, acting as the FBI’s liaison with Big Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter, played a central role in the federal government’s backdoor scheme to censor Americans online before the 2020 presidential election.

Despite being subpoenaed by Congress to testify, Chan—under orders from Biden’s Department of Justice—refused to appear. Why? Because Congress wouldn’t allow DOJ lawyers to sit in and monitor the interview. Yes, the DOJ wants to babysit its agents during congressional investigations, undermining the House’s constitutional oversight authority.

According to the complaint, Chan was a “pivotal figure” passing information from the FBI to social media companies in the months leading up to the election—information that often led to the silencing of viewpoints inconvenient to the ruling regime.

According to Morello, Chan also testified in the landmark case Missouri v. Biden—a case in which I, Jim Hoft, am a plaintiff—where he conveniently claimed to have “no internal knowledge” of the FBI’s role in pressuring tech companies to censor the explosive Hunter Biden laptop story.

Keep reading

UK: Ofcom Appoints “Experts” to Advisory Committee on “Disinformation” Under New Censorship Law

UK’s regulator Ofcom, which is tasked with enforcing the sweeping online censorship and age verification law, the Online Safety Act, has appointed members of its “Online Information Advisory Committee” (formerly known as “Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation”), which will advise Ofcom on “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Lord Richard Allan, who was last November appointed a non-executive director of Ofcom’s Board for a four-year term, now chairs the Committee, comprised of five members – most of whom have prominent track records as pro-censorship advocates.

One is Jeffrey Howard, a political philosophy professor at University College London (UCL), whose website’s research page includes an upcoming article titled, “The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty.”

Howard says the article defends platforms’ “moral responsibility” to “proactively” moderate “wrongfully harmful or dangerous speech” as one of justifications for platforms to censor out of a sense of “moral duty.”

Elisabeth Costa, Chief of Innovation and Partnerships at the Business Insights Team (BIT, which started off as the “Nudge Unit“) is another Committee member.

Costa should feel right at home helping enforce the Online Safety Act, given that BIT has close ties to many governments and international organizations that push for the kinds of censorship like “prebunking.”

Keep reading

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Cites Southport Stabbing to Justify Targeting Online “Conspiracy Theories” and “Misinformation”

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced an £875,000 ($1,170M) expansion of his Shared Endeavour Fund, using the tragic mass stabbing and murders in Southport to justify an intensified campaign against what he describes as “online conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced an £875,000 ($1,170M) expansion of his Shared Endeavour Fund, using the tragic mass stabbing and murders in Southport to justify an intensified campaign against what he describes as “online conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

More: Southport Tragedy Becomes Starmer’s Stage for Big Brother Britain

Despite the gravity of the Southport attacks, Khan appeared to frame the event more as a case study for the dangers of social media rather than focusing on the violence itself, saying: “The Southport disorder and chilling hate crime attacks that followed shocked our nation and showed how false information on social media spread like wildfire with devastating consequences.”

The move directs a significant portion of the new funding toward policing online speech under the guise of protecting “vulnerable young Londoners from radicalization and misinformation online.” This expansion fits within the Mayor’s broader £15.9 ($21.31M) million anti-extremism agenda, the largest of its kind initiated by a London mayor.

According to the official press release, the Southport incident highlighted “increased concern about online radicalization and the spread of misinformation,” even while admitting that overall hate crime incidents have been declining across London.

Nevertheless, the Mayor maintains that the numbers, despite dropping, are still “too high,” justifying the fresh wave of funding and monitoring efforts.

Keep reading