Tag: censorship

NYT and Washington Post Push YouTube To Censor Election “Misinformation,” Lament Podcast Censorship Challenges

The New York Times, Media Matters for America, and The Washington Post are stepping up their pressure on YouTube to demonetize and censor election “misinformation,” particularly statements that the 2020 election was rigged or insecure.

As these organizations push for stricter speech suppression, questions are raised about the implications for open discourse on the platform and the legacy media and activist attempts to get it shut down.

In the past months, Media Matters undertook an extensive review of content from 30 prominent conservative YouTube channels, identifying 286 videos containing what they classified as election misinformation, which collectively garnered over 47 million views. This report, backed by verification from The New York Times, pointed out that YouTube profited from ads placed on many of these videos.

Highlighted in the Times article were figures such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, all of whom have voiced skepticism regarding the legitimacy of various aspects of the 2020 election process.

According to The New York Times, “Giuliani, the former New York mayor, posted more false electoral claims to YouTube than any other major commentator in the research group.”

Surprisingly, YouTube’s stance, as relayed by a spokeswoman, stresses the importance of open political discourse: “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” she stated, defending the platform’s approach to content management.

However, YouTube did still remove three of the videos that Media Matters flagged.

Keep reading

After 4 Years of Censorship: Mainstream Media Now Confirms that “COVID Jabs May be to Blame for Increase in Excess Deaths”

“Covid Jabs May be to Blame for Increase in Excess Deaths”

If this report by The Telegraph had been published in early 2021, several million lives would have been saved.

But in 2021, censorship was imposed. Honest journalism was silenced. The media was supportive of the fear campaign.

The Telegraph report by Science Editor Sara Knapton, 5 June 2024 pertains to:

Researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures.

They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns” and called on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said: “Although Covid-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the Covid-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.

“Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”

Click here to read the full article on The Telegraph.

Keep reading

White House Security Adviser’s “Information Czar” Idea Triggers Free Speech Concerns

Amid escalating assertions over foreign influence in US elections, the White House is exploring a controversial proposal that some warn could threaten free speech and open debate. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan recently confirmed that the administration has been “grappling with and thinking about” the potential creation of an “information czar,” sparking concern over the government’s expanding role in controlling narratives under the guise of national security.

Speaking at the National War College, Sullivan responded to a question about the potential for a centralized figure to oversee and counter foreign disinformation efforts by suggesting that while the idea has been under consideration, it could raise issues in a free society. “Questions around information operations, around public diplomacy, around the voice that America uses to speak to the world, bleed over into questions of propaganda or politics,” he said, implicitly acknowledging that such a role could have far-reaching consequences on public discourse.

The proposal for an “information czar” raises immediate concerns over whether any centralized control over information could be used to restrict speech and stifle dissenting opinions. Sullivan recognized this risk, questioning whether such a role should be linked to the White House itself or to a more removed agency in order to “insulate this from the twos and fros of politics.” Still, the idea of government officials controlling “information resiliency” remains contentious, especially when directed at speech in the US rather than strictly addressing threats abroad.

In defending the proposal, Sullivan argued that foreign election interference, particularly by Russia and other state actors, poses a national security issue and “an attack on our country” that needs a robust response. However, critics argue that efforts to counter disinformation could easily expand into broader content censorship efforts, a slippery slope that could ultimately see the government interfering with free speech in the name of “resilience.”

Keep reading

Journalism & Democracy in a Time of Genocide

Last month in New York at separate forums, two senior Democrat figures – John Kerry and Hillary Clinton – pointed to what they saw as major problems: the First Amendment was “an obstacle to building consensus,” and the “narrative” in the press needs to be (even more) “consistent.”

The challenge presented by the free flow of ideas and information in the digital world, to those accustomed to maintaining control of the narrative, defines our moment in history and the fragility of democratic freedoms.

Those calls for less freedom of speech and for more consistency in messaging to the public by the Fourth Estate, come at a time when large sections of the public have lost trust in a legacy media too consistent in its messaging, and incapable of providing the information and analysis that will enable them to know and fully understand what’s happening.

Many have turned to social media where they are alerted to the work of independent journalists and experts whose commentary is not welcome in the Western mainstream press but which provides a multitude of perspectives that are more useful in navigating our world, in understanding our place in it, and indeed how we might be responsible for some of its very significant problems – perhaps that we may be on the wrong side of history.

With respect to foreign policy the legacy media have an unacknowledged partisan perspective, the rectitude of which is reinforced through the validation of all singing from the same song book.

We have learnt to pay attention to messaging emanating from the U.S. political class, because its allies will be expected to concurrently tackle the same issues, in this case, to reign in the problem presented by free speech (the freedom both to speak and to hear) common to Western democracies, rendering the population less manageable in its thinking, importantly in the level of its support for war, and at the ballot box.

In Australia, where there is no constitutional or legislated protection for free speech, the 18c “hate speech” provision of the Racial Discrimination Act which made “insult” and “offence” a test for breach of the law, was introduced by a Labor government.

The criteria for breach make this law rife for weaponisation and efforts led by George Brandis under a Liberal government to amend the provision failed, with significant opposition coming from Pro-Israel Lobby groups.

Keep reading

YouTube May Be Suppressing The Rogan/Trump Podcast And Bombarding It With Kamala Ads

The Joe Rogan interview with Donald Trump is impossible to hide, it’s been seen by tens of millions of people, yet some people believe YouTube is having a damn good go at it.

Several commentators have noted that it appears that YouTube is suppressing the video on its platform.

It seems YouTube is hiding the podcast from the search results.

There might be another explanation, however.

Rogan tweeted Friday “There is no issue with YouTube censoring the trump episode. It was just supposed to go live on both Spotify and YouTube at the same time and there was a glitch in Spotify’s upload system and so we delisted the YouTube link until it’s fixed. It should be fine now.”

But is it fixed?

Many have said that they still cannot find the video via a Google search or the YouTube search box.

It has also not been featured on YouTube’s trending page, despite having millions of views.

Keep reading

The Democracy Fund: Trudeau’s Online Harms Act could weaponize courts and stifle free speech

The Democracy Fund (TDF) has warned the public that the proposed Online Harms Act of the Canadian government could “weaponize” the courts and instill fear while doing little to curb social conflict and promote safety online.

In February, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Arif Virani proposed the Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63. The bill, which includes amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, claims to protect children from online sexual abuse, cyberbullying and self-harm.

Bill C-63 seeks to reinstate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a “hate speech” provision abolished in 2013 by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The bill would enable the government to target and remove specific online content.

The bill aims to create a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with monitoring and regulating internet content.

Additionally, a five-person government-appointed panel would monitor internet platforms and hold “secret commission hearings” against rule-breakers. Under the bill, those who commit hate speech online could face severe penalties, including life imprisonment or fines of up to CA$50,000 ($36,150).

However, in a 26-page legal brief, TDF argued that the proposed bill would grant excessive government power to clamp down on online speech.

“Historically, the power to censor has been a weapon of authoritarian regimes. This power inevitably expands and eventually eliminates the civic process by which society adapts and progresses,” the TDF wrote in the legal brief. “It will not reduce social conflict. On the contrary, it is likely to exacerbate the problem of social conflict, weaponize the courts and the human rights tribunal for political purposes, and introduce fear into the online social environment.”

Moreover, TDF stated that “open dialogue and education” are better alternative solutions to address harmful attitudes rather than censorship.

Keep reading

EU President Likens Free Speech To Infectious Disease

Ursula von der Leyen advocates “pre-bunking” in the public forum to “vaccinate” people against “disinformation”…

EU President Ursula von der Leyen just joined the ranks of former Senator John Kerry and other globalist ghouls in declaring war on free speech by perversely proclaiming that the EU citizenry needs to be “vaccinated against disinformation.”

Like every censor in history, she characterizes her censorship program as a means of expunging erroneous information and ideas from public discourse. By using the word “disinformation,” she implies that she and her clique are already the sole possessors of the truth about everything, and that everyone who has and shares heterodox ideas is necessarily in error.

Her entire premise is FALSE for the following reasons:

1). Knowledge about the world is constantly evolving through constant inquiry, discussion, and dissemination. Knowledge is NOT a static thing. This is why countries with stifling censorship regimes have experienced intellectual, scientific, and artistic stagnation. Their rulers try to freeze the human mind in its state at their moment in history.

2). NO state, university, or ecclesiastical committee has ever been in possession of the full truth of any matter. Official orthodoxies have always been challenged by heterodox thinkers. Indeed, virtually every major advance in human insight has been performed by heterodox thinkers.

3). As John Milton observed in his 1644 pamphlet, Areopagitica, contending with error is an intrinsic part of learning and discovery. We literally learn by making mistakes and correcting them. If free speech is suppressed for the objective of preventing the propagation of erroneous thought—or “vaccinating against it”—it will become extremely difficult if not impossible for people to learn and discover.

4). Without a single exception in history, the people who hold power always advocate the orthodoxy that sustains and extends their power and that of their friends and supporters.

Ursula von der Leyen is the quintessence of this principle.

Keep reading

Microsoft’s “Inclusivity Checker” Sparks Fears of a Looming “Speech Police,” Flagging Terms Like “Mother” and “Father” for More “Gender-Neutral” Alternatives

Microsoft is busy inventing new phrases to make sure that, what the tech giant and its likes consider “inclusivity,” is properly reflected in Microsoft Word.

But at least as far as words, “mother” and “father” are concerned, this inclusivity seems to, paradoxically, work by exclusion.

Gone are the days when Word offered spelling and grammar checks. Now, for people who like their writing software to nudge and prod them during the writing process by suggesting “more suitable” replacements, Word has something called “Inclusivity Checker.”

The repository of terms contained in the tool, that are recommended to be replaced, is only growing.

A modern update takes a dim view of the expression “maternity leave” on “gender-inclusivity” grounds, and suggests that it be replaced with “birth-related leave,” “parental leave,” or “childbirth leave.”

Fathers who go on paternity leave should instead be described as taking “child-bonding leave,” Microsoft thinks. All this is explained as a way to make sure that the writer is inclusive of “all genders.”

Is all this really necessary? Microsoft thinks it is. According to the Free Speech Union, one of the terms writers who, for some reason, use Word are advised to replace is Postman Pat: it should be “Postal Worker Pat,” according to those behind this effort.

In that case, the intent is to avoid the possibility of gender bias. The same goes for “biologically female” – a phrase best avoided, according to Microsoft.

Keep reading

“Black Ops” – How a US-UK Censorship Group Targeted RFK Jr. To Stifle Dissent

Elon Musk acquiring Twitter, now X, and doing that amid the unprecedented censorship carried out on all major US social networks – and carried out uniformly and successfully up until that point – seems to have really ruffled some feathers, and continues to do so to this day.

More insight into how events were unfolding has been provided by investigative journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi, earlier this week.

At the center of this is – the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a UK-based group that at this point has a long record of accusations it worked to put out in order to stifle free speech on platforms, including in the US, a notable one being the fabrication about “The Disinformation Dozen.”

The documents Thacker and Taibbi worked with now came from CCDH whistleblowers, insiders who had access to and provided minutes from the group’s meetings, from the beginning of 2024 until early October.

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-affiliated US non-profit, spoke with Thacker, to learn that information from CCDH insiders revealed the group was planning to launch “black ops”-style efforts against not only Kennedy, but also X (“Kill Musk’s Twitter”), and beyond, to other platforms, like Substack, where the deplatforming targets would have been Covid vaccine skeptics Dr. Joseph Mercola and Alex Berenson.

“Black ops” is a pretty heavy term to use – it involves secret campaigns that the government, military, and similar, launch to then deny any involvement.

But, the term shows up in CCDH’s own minutes, this one from early January mentioning Robert Kennedy Jr. to state, “RFK — black ops being set up to look at RFK. Nervousness about the impact of him on the election. We (CCDH) may be asked to comment, particularly from antivaxx.”

Not for nothing, Kennedy was one of the “Disinformation Dozen” in the past maligned by the CCDH.

Keep reading

Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X

Amid the chaos of pre-election America, major information has surfaced, revealing internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This UK-based group, which was founded by British political strategist Morgan McSweeney under the name Brixton Endeavours Limited before being renamed to the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2019, outlined a clear goal in their agenda: “Kill Musk’s Twitter.” The documents make it clear that the CCDH is targeting Elon Musk’s social media platform with full force. McSweeney, who helped guide Keir Starmer to victory in the UK, is now involved in US politics, advising Kamala Harris as she navigates the upcoming election, raising serious questions about the CCDH’s reach and motives.

Now, if you’re wondering why a think tank founded by a man who helped turn Keir Starmer into the British Prime Minister is so dead set on smashing up a social media platform thousands of miles across the pond, you’re not alone. But the CCDH isn’t just any ragtag team of keyboard warriors. These guys are plugged into Washington power circles like an iPhone into a dodgy charger, with ties so tight to the Biden-Harris campaign, that they might as well be writing the tweets. And with McSweeney now advising Kamala Harris, well, let’s just say the plot thickens.

Keep reading