Tag: censorship

Congress Takes Another Step Toward Enabling Broad Internet Censorship

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday advanced the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) , a bill that seeks to speed up the removal of certain kinds of troubling online content. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike. 

As we’ve written before, while protecting victims of these heinous privacy invasions is a legitimate goal, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy. 

This bill mandates a notice-and-takedown system that threatens free expression, user privacy, and due process, without meaningfully addressing the problem it claims to solve. The “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored. 

The legislation’s 48-hour takedown deadline means that online service providers, particularly smaller ones, will have to comply quickly to avoid legal risks. That time crunch will make it impossible for services to verify the content is in fact NCII. Instead, services will rely on automated filters—infamously blunt tools that frequently flag legal content, from fair-use commentary to news reporting.

Keep reading

BitChute Discontinues Video-Sharing Service for UK Residents Over Online Censorship Laws

BitChute, a platform widely recognized for its commitment to free expression and open discourse, has officially withdrawn its services from the United Kingdom, citing untenable regulatory conditions under the UK’s recently enacted censorship law, the Online Safety Act. The move comes in direct response to regulator Ofcom’s newly enhanced authority, which enables the communications regulator to levy fines as high as 10% of a company’s global revenue if deemed non-compliant with the Act’s sweeping censorship demands.

This shift in regulatory climate marks what some view as a profound erosion of digital freedoms in the UK. BitChute’s decision could serve as the first signal of a broader exodus, with other international platforms potentially following suit to avoid the heavy-handed oversight now codified in British law.

In a detailed public statement posted to its website, BitChute explained the rationale behind the drastic step:

“After careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video-sharing service for UK residents.”

The platform highlighted the unpredictable and burdensome nature of the new legal framework, emphasizing the Act’s expansive mandates on content moderation and the discretionary powers it grants Ofcom to enforce them. BitChute warned that these provisions create an environment of legal ambiguity, placing platforms at the mercy of vague standards and severe penalties.

“The BitChute platform has always operated on principles of freedom of speech, expression and association…However, the evolving regulatory pressures—including strict enforcement mechanisms and potential liabilities—have created an operational landscape in which continuing to serve the UK market exposes our company to unacceptable legal and compliance risks.”

The company has implemented immediate restrictions: UK residents can still upload content to the platform, but none of their videos will be accessible to other UK-based users. Their content will remain viewable to users in other countries, who can interact with it as usual.

“The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK.”

This effectively means that while UK-based creators are not entirely barred from participation, their voices are now digitally cordoned off from fellow citizens, a result of legal constraints rather than technical ones.

Keep reading

Senate Probes Meta Over Alleged Censorship Tools and Data Sharing Ties with Chinese Communist Party, Whistleblower Testifies

US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, on Wednesday organized a hearing about Meta’s alleged work to develop custom censorship tools for China’s Communist Party (CCP) and share user data with China – which Meta denies.

Whistleblower and former Facebook Director Global Policy Sara Wynn-Williams, who left the company at some point around 2018, presented her testimony during the hearing dubbed, “A Time for Truth: Oversight of Meta’s Foreign Relations and Representations to the United States Congress.”

Senator Josh Hawley, who chaired the meeting, showed internal Facebook documents that Wynn-Williams previously shared with Congress, that appeared to corroborate the whistleblower’s claims.

Wynn-Williams accused Meta executives of “repeatedly” undermining US national security and betraying American values as they allegedly set out to build “an $18 billion business in China” and work directly with the CCP, including censoring a Chinese dissident.

According to her testimony, Meta executives are guilty of lying to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public about the giant’s dealings with China, which she dubbed “illegal and dangerous,” dating back to 2015.

One of Wynn-Williams’ allegations is that Facebook’s “moderation” tools for the CCP allowed those using them to censor access to content in entire regions, or on particular dates, such as the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Wynn-Williams also claimed that Meta was willing to allow access to user data, including that of Americans, as it built a physical pipeline between the US and China, which the latter country could have used to intercept information.

“The only reason China does not currently have access to US user data through this pipeline is because Congress stepped in,” she told the committee.

Keep reading

Trump Orders Security Clearance Revoked for Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Amid Investigation into Censorship and Political Bias

Former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Chris Krebs is once again facing public examination after President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to revoke Krebs’ security clearance and evaluate the access of others tied to him, including colleagues at the cybersecurity company SentinelOne.

The order, issued via a presidential memorandum on Wednesday, marks a renewed push to scrutinize the former official’s role in what the Trump team describes as a coordinated campaign to censor political speech under the pretense of cybersecurity.

According to the administration’s statement, this action is part of a wider national security review aimed at determining whether individuals with access to sensitive intelligence are acting in alignment with what it calls “the national interest.” The memorandum also calls for a reassessment of CISA’s operations going back six years, asserting that the agency engaged in actions that directly contradicted the foundational principles of free expression.

Krebs currently holds a senior intelligence and policy position at SentinelOne, a publicly traded cybersecurity firm that entered into a partnership with CISA in 2023 to bolster digital protections for critical U.S. infrastructure. The company has not issued a public response to the developments.

The White House released a statement along with the directive, declaring:

“ENDING GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP: President Trump is committed to ending government censorship of Americans and believes that those who engage in such conduct should not have access to our nation’s secrets.”

The release levels pointed allegations at Krebs, accusing him of weaponizing his role at CISA to silence conservative voices. It claims that the agency’s collaboration with social media companies during his tenure amounted to political interference masked as a fight against misinformation.

The statement further alleges that Krebs and his team discouraged transparency around topics ranging from election vulnerabilities to the COVID-19 pandemic, and attempted to downplay the Hunter Biden laptop story, a matter that remains politically charged.

During the 2020 election cycle, CISA worked with major online platforms to address “disinformation,” a strategy that drew concern from Republican lawmakers who viewed the effort as an overreach and a potential tool of political bias.

Keep reading

TAKE IT DOWN Act Advances in House Despite Major Censorship Concerns

The US House Committee on Energy and Commerce has passed the TAKE IT DOWN (Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks) Act in a 49 to 1, bipartisan vote, and the legislation is now headed for the House of Representatives.

If the bill clears that hurdle as well, it will be up to President Trump to sign it into law.

Backed, among others, by First Lady Melania Trump, TAKE IT DOWN was introduced as a way to stop the spread of real, and AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII). If, as it seems likely, TAKE IT DOWN becomes law, it will force platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours.

But the bill’s critics continue to warn that the text lacks proper safeguards and other requirements that would prevent it from being misused, or abused as a tool of censorship, instead of narrowly serving its declarative purpose.

These concerns are not addressed in a press release the Committee on Energy and Commerce issued after adopting the proposal, as it focused instead on the benefits the legislation would provide to victims of dissemination of explicit imagery, with an emphasis on that which is AI-generated, i.e., on deepfakes.

However, campaigners, among them the Center for Democracy and Technology and the EFF, believe that the bill’s actual wording does not live up to its good intent, specifically around the takedown requirement which “lends itself to abuse.”

While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be tasked with issuing penalties for non-compliance, under TAKE IT DOWN, there are no consequences for those making false reports, which could lead to legitimate content quickly disappearing from the internet.

The bill doesn’t lay out how those affected might appeal once their content is falsely flagged and removed, while platforms are under no threat of penalty for removing constitutionally protected speech.

Keep reading

Meta Keeps Big MAGA Accounts on Ban List as Mark Zuckerberg Lobbies Trump

Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly lobbying the Trump administration to drop a pivotal FTC case against the company, in what would amount to a major political favor for Meta. Despite Zuckerberg’s multiple olive branches to the Turmp administration, a number of high-profile, pro-MAGA voices are still banned on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Mark Zuckerberg has made regular visits to the White House urging the president to lean on the FTC to drop its case against Meta. If the FTC were to prevail in the case, Meta could be forced to divest from WhatsApp and Instagram, breaking up the company.

In January, Zuckerberg made several public overtures to the Trump administration, praising parts of its policy platform in an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, and criticizing the outgoing Biden administration for its censorship demands during COVID. Zuckerberg also announced a policy pivot at Meta, promising to “get back to our roots” of supporting free speech.

Despite these pledges, several prominent anti-establishment figures remain banned on Meta platforms:

  • Laura Loomer, investigative journalist and former Republican congressional candidate who was recently credited with influencing a shakeup at the NSC.
  • Tommy Robinson, the prominent British political activist and critic of Islam.
  • Alex Jones
  • Paul Joseph Watson
  • Gavin McInnes
  • Milo Yiannopoulos, self-styled “civil rights icon” and former Breitbart News editor.

It is also unclear if Meta still maintains its “hate agents”  list of prominent anti-establishment voices uncovered by Breitbart News in 2019 that included political candidates. Or if the company has taken any steps to remedy the mass-censorship of WhatsApp accounts in Brazil, which extended to Flavio Bolsonaro, son of persecuted former president Jair Bolsonaro. In a comment to Breitbart News, the company denied it has continued to maintain its documented list of hate agents.

As the FTC trial date draws closer, Meta has drawn flak from the conservative commentariat.

Keep reading

US-Funded “Anti-Misinformation” Groups Are Still Quietly Active

Despite the big and open push that came in with the new US administration to end the practice of the government funding third-party groups to effectively act as its censorship proxies – some of these arrangements continue to be operational.

Most appear to be working to strengthen previously established “preferred” narratives around health issues – as ever, with “combating misinformation” given as the declarative, overarching purpose behind the effort.

But critics say, that was/remains a smokescreen meant to manipulate public opinion.

The Federalist reports that the National Science Foundation (NSF) – one of the US government’s “independent agencies” designed to channel federal funds – had a number of programs under its “anti-misinformation” umbrella, the Convergence Accelerator.

Among the ones who continue to this day are Chime In, Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust (ARTT), and Expert Voices Together (EVT).

Chime In’s original name was Course Correct. It was set up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison – with $5 million coming from NSF in 2022 – to provide “anti-misinformation” resources for journalists.

True to the era, its original “mission” was to persuade (Covid) vaccine skeptics to take the jab; and then it went into advocating (“misinformation detecting”) in favor of persuading people there was no reason to be skeptical about genetically modified (GMO) foods, Covid narratives, and vaccines in general, as well as issues like sunscreen product and raw milk safety.

ARTT, meanwhile, came up with its own “AI” chatbot, that focused on political discourse, but according to the Federalist, once again, heavily tied to vaccine hesitancy.

From 2021, ARTT received close to $750,000 from the NSF, and a further $5 million, “to develop practical interventions to build trust and address vaccine hesitancy.”

Keep reading

100+ Meta employees, including Head of AI Policy, confirmed as ex-IDF

Meta’s recruitment of vast numbers of former Israeli soldiers raises serious questions about the tech giant’s commitment to free speech – and provides a peek into a biased content moderation process that’s been heavily censoring pro-Palestinian accounts amid the Israeli siege of Gaza.

This article was originally published by ¡Do Not Panic!

More than one hundred former Israeli spies and IDF soldiers work for tech giant Meta, including its head of AI policy, who served in the IDF under an Israeli government scheme that allows non-Israelis to volunteer for the Israeli army.

Shira Anderson, an American international rights lawyer, is Meta’s AI policy chief who voluntarily enlisted for the IDF in 2009 under a program which enables non-Israeli Jews who aren’t eligible for military conscription to join the Israeli army.

Through this program, known as Garin Tzabar, many non-Israelis who have fought for the IDF have been implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity since Israel’s genocide of Gaza began in October 2023.

Anderson served as a non-commissioned officer in the IDF for over two years where she worked in the Military Strategic Information Section, writing dossiers and public relations propaganda for the IDF. She was also the liaison between the IDF and foreign military attaches stationed in Israel, and liaison to the Red Cross.

With AI a critical emerging technology for tech giants and militaries, Anderson’s role at Meta is an important one. She develops the legal guidance, policies and public relations talking points concerning AI issues and regulation for all of Meta’s key areas, including its product, public policy and government affairs teams.

At Meta, Anderson, who is based in Meta’s Washington DC office, is in familiar company. More than one hundred former Israeli spies and IDF soldiers are employed by the company, my new investigation shows, many of whom worked for Israel’s spy agency Unit 8200.

These ex-IDF members are based evenly across Meta’s US offices and in its Tel Aviv office, and a significant number of them, like Anderson, have a specialization in AI. Given that Israel has made extensive use of AI not just to conduct its genocide, but to establish its prior system of apartheid, surveillance and occupation, Meta’s recruiting of IDF AI specialists is particularly insidious. Did these former Israeli spies use their Unit 8200 connections to help the tech giant collaborate with the IDF to build kill lists? According to a report last year, Unit 8200 infiltrated WhatsApp groups and marked every name in a group for assassination if just one alleged Hamas member was also in the group, no matter the size or content of the group chat.

Keep reading

How Taxpayer-Funded Censorship Tools Could Manipulate What Americans See About Vaccines, Raw Milk, And More

The U.S. government funded various online censorship tools, some of which went missing after President Donald Trump took office. Others, however, are still operating today — potentially limiting what Americans see online, especially regarding health issues.

The National Science Foundation incubated a host of programs through its Convergence Accelerator to fight online speech deemed “misinformation,” many of which recently dropped off the map, as The Federalist previously reported. But some of these projects continue today — adopted by left-leaning institutions and dedicated to controlling online speech.

The censorship projects still operating include Chime In, hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison; the Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust, housed in leftist nonprofit Discourse Labs; and Expert Voices Together, adopted by the left-wing group Right To Be. 

Chime In

The tool Chime In was previously called “Course Correct.” UW-Madison developed Course Correct as an anti-“misinformation” dashboard for journalists, as The Federalist previously reported. The NSF awarded the project $5 million starting in 2022. According to the grant description, it hoped to “scale Course Correct into local, national, and international newsrooms…” 

The program was renamed to Chime In “more than a year ago,” university spokesman John Lucas previously told The Federalist. Chime In is housed in UW-Madison’s Center for Communication and Civic Renewal, and aims to “counter vaccine hesitancy.”

As The College Fix reported in 2023, the program conducted “pilot testing… on issues including: raw milk, genetically modified foods, vaccine safety, fluoride in water, Covid-19, and sunscreen safety.” The project could also collude with media to manipulate the public narrative.

“Once journalists evaluate the size and reach of these misinformation networks detected by the dashboard, they work with Course Correct staff to develop and rapidly test messages that will reduce the flow of misinformation,” reads the project’s NSF description. “Course Correct will seed the affected misinformation network with sponsored social media posts…”

The Federalist obtained a screen recording of the Chime In software. The program helps users create messaging “experiments,” creating their own target groups, such as “vaccine skeptics.” Users can push their narratives on different platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, then request funding for these campaigns. Finally, the tool enables users to draft specific posts to be promoted across social media.

Keep reading

UK Halts “Legal but Harmful” Censorship Rule Amid US Trade Pressure, But Online Safety Act Still Fuels Free Speech and Privacy Fears

Plans to implement sweeping content moderation powers for tech companies have been put on hold by the UK government, as concerns grow that reintroducing speech controls could disrupt sensitive trade discussions with President Donald Trump’s allies.

The British Government had been exploring a return to the abandoned “legal but harmful” proposal, a measure that would have forced online platforms to purge content deemed “harmful” yet not unlawful. But after internal pushback and a wary eye on Washington’s stance, the idea has been quietly dropped.

The original measure, introduced under Conservative leadership in 2022, triggered significant dissent, including from within the party itself. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, then serving as business secretary, dismissed the idea, warning it could mean “legislating for hurt feelings.” The proposal was ultimately replaced with tools that give individuals more choice over the material they encounter online rather than imposing top-down restrictions.

According to reports, the recent move to distance the government from any revival of the censorship clause comes amid Labour’s review of the Online Safety Act, launched after riots last summer linked to false claims about a Southport attacker. While that review sparked fresh debate over “misinformation,” officials have opted not to revisit the “legal but harmful” language, choosing instead to emphasize online protections for children.

Labour appears focused on building upon new safety measures coming into force this summer, including mandatory age checks for adult content. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is working on a package aimed at strengthening youth safeguards, though these proposals stop well short of any return to compelled content takedowns.

“We are really committed to keeping children safe,” a government insider said. “Finally, the Online Safety Act is starting to have an impact, and we will see some enforcement action shortly. Age assurance will also be a massive step forward when it comes in the summer, but we’re actively exploring other ways of protecting children.”

​While the UK government’s removal of the “legal but harmful” provision from the Online Safety Act was intended to address concerns over free speech and censorship, significant issues remain. The Act still imposes broad duties on online platforms to assess and mitigate risks associated with user-generated content.

Keep reading