Tag: censorship

How to Defeat the Censorship Industrial Complex

One of my colleagues, a medical doctor, that I often “tour” with on what many refer to as the “freedom” circuit, texted me a meme a while ago that I just love. Well, to be honest, I actually despise it because of what it symbolizes, which is the tremendous struggles we’ve endured the past four and a half years to get our voices heard by the masses. But part of me likes the meme because it completely embodies what life was like in 2020 for those of us who were speaking out almost from the moment the government said, “Lockdown! Just for 2 weeks to flatten the curve.” 

Whilst my doctor (MD and PhD), academic, and economist colleagues were trying to warn people about the negative medical, mental, and economic consequences of locking down perfectly healthy people throughout the world for months on end, personally, I was shouting from the rooftops peering through my legal lens saying, “The government cannot do this, folks! Wake up!” But nobody was listening to me back then. Nobody was listening to any of us. And we didn’t know one another at that point. Nor did we know how to find one another, or even if each other existed at all! The censorship was so thick, you could cut it with a knife. (I’m not exactly sure that thickness has lessened any these past few years. It’s disputable, indeed, but that’s a story for another day).

Once my bold, vocal colleagues and I finally found each other through the fog of censorship, we shared our eerily similar stories about how mainstream media was boycotting us, our work and our “against the narrative” public speeches, and how Big Tech was silencing each and every one of us online. Facebook was sending us “warnings” for posting “misinformation” (whatever that means, because of course I challenged them constantly and asked who they thought they were to determine what was truth and what wasn’t – they responded to none of my challenges, since they clearly had no leg to stand on).

Then there was their blatantly obvious shadowbanning us to the point where I’d post something and they’d only let 14 people see it. In the early days, I had a YouTube channel, but they tore down my videos within an hour or two of posting, and they threw me in YouTube jail so many times, I lost count. Some of my colleagues had tens of thousands of YouTube or Twitter followers, and then poof! One day they lost them all because the overlords cancelled their accounts.

Keep reading

Google in the Hot Seat as Trump Assassination Attempt Sparks Congressional Showdown

One of the most jarring developments (and that’s saying something) this US campaign season so far has been the assassination attempt on former President Trump, now a candidate for the country’s highest office.

But even worse, it soon became clear that the focus was being quickly shifted from this major event; Trump supporters suspected this was not an organic lack of interest from voters, but Big Tech censorship. However, if these allegations are found to be true, the whole thing could easily be treated as an actual conspiracy.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

And so, both the House and the Senate are launching investigations.

The Congress Republicans want to know – did Google and Meta, the most powerful message- and narrative-controlling online entities, deliberately suppress news stories about the assassination attempt? And why?

Google’s response to Senator Roger Marshall’s letter effectively asking these questions has left him seeing no option other than to have Google execs IMMEDIATELY (the capitalization in senator) subpoenaed by the Senate Homeland Committee.

They will be asked to expound on what exactly was meant when they tried to (“bizarrely,” Marshall stated) justify the attempt as a “hypothetical act of political violence” – because “Google systems” were supposedly programmed to do that long before Trump narrowly escaped death.

Keep reading

Letitia James Demands Big Tech Curb Election “Misinformation”

New York Attorney General Letitia James has been actively campaigning for stricter controls on AI and social media platforms, invoking concerns about “misinformation.”

James has a history of social media censorship demands that have faced allegations of First Amendment violations.

ABC News reports that James has contacted key players in the AI industry, such as Google, Meta, and OpenAI, through a letter, urging them to implement mechanisms that could restrict what she defines as misleading and deceptive speech related to elections.

“While misinformation has been a concern in past elections, with the rise of gen AI, barriers that prevent bad actors from creating deceptive or misleading content have weakened dramatically,” said the letter, sent to social media and AI companies, including Google, Meta, and OpenAI.

Keep reading

Senate Passes Kids’ “Safety” Bills Despite Privacy, Digital ID, and Censorship Concerns

Two bills combined – the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) – have passed in the US Senate in a 91-3 vote, and will now be considered by the House.

Criticism of the bills focuses mainly on the likelihood that, if and when they become law, they will help expand online digital ID verification, as well as around issues like censorship (removal and blocking of content).

Related: The 2024 Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda

The effort to make KOSA and COPA 2.0 happen was spearheaded by a parent group that was pushing lawmakers and tech companies’ executives to move in this direction, and their main demand was to enact new rules that would prevent cyberbullying and other harms.

And now the main sponsors, senators Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, and Republican Marsha Blackburn are trying to dispel these concerns, suggesting these are not “speech bills” and do not (directly) impose age verification.

Further defending the bills, they say that the legislation does not mandate that internet platforms start collecting even more user data, and reject the notion it is invasive of people’s privacy.

But the problem is that although technically true, this interpretation of the bills’ impact is ultimately incorrect, as some of their provisions do encourage censorship, facilitate the introduction of digital ID for age verification, and leave the door open for mass collection of online users’ data – under specific circumstances – and end ending anonymity online.

The bills are hailed by supporters as “landmark” legislation that is the first to focus on protecting children on the internet in the last 20 years, with some lawmakers in the Senate, like majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, describing the result of the vote as “a momentous day.”

Keep reading

Zuckerberg’s Meta Censors US Paralympian in Bid to ‘Foster a Safe Community’

When will Meta pull the plug on someone representing the United States at the Paralympic Games in Paris, which start later this month?

When their sport uses a gun, of course.

According to a Wall Street Journal report late last month, McKenna Geer, a member of the U.S. team, will be competing in the air rifle event. However, last month, she said she was censored for posting about shooting-related things. Which, as you know, people who shoot for sport are known to do.

Geer, 28, has a condition known as amyoplasia arthrogryposis, which affects the muscles. You’d think that Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta — which runs Facebook and Instagram among its social media holdings — would read the room in terms of shadow-banning her. You’d be wrong.

“Earlier this month, Ms. Geer shared a photo on Instagram of the air rifle she used to qualify for the Paralympic Games,” the Journal reported on July 24.

“The company flagged the photo as out of line with its guidelines and informed her that nonfollowers wouldn’t be able to view her account or content in Instagram’s search, explore suggested users or similar features.”

The company’s explanation?

“Our Recommendations Guidelines help to promote content that fosters a safe community on Instagram,” it said.

Geer, who apparently knew this was a possibility, took to Instagram on July 17 to write about Meta’s decision.

“I have always feared the day the media would censor my sport and speech just because I use firearms,” she wrote. “That day has finally come.”

Keep reading

Starmer’s Push to Police “Fake News” Sparks Major Censorship Concerns

Under proposals currently being considered, the Labour Party, led by the new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, plans to compel tech companies to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms. These measures, initiated in response to recent riots, have sparked controversy over potential infringements on free speech.

Keir Starmer, addressing these concerns last Friday, indicated that the government would reassess social media regulations to deter future disturbances. The Telegraph has reported that part of this reevaluation involves imposing obligations on social media entities to curb “legal but harmful” content. This would obligate platforms to limit or remove content spreading false information about various sensitive subjects, including asylum seekers and self-harm, irrespective of its legality.

Critics, however, have voiced apprehensions that these measures could suppress free expression. They argue that this demonstrates a more authoritarian inclination within Sir Keir’s Labour Party, potentially undermining foundational free speech principles by extensively policing speech that does not necessarily violate laws.

The discord has also touched upon interactions between the Prime Minister and Elon Musk, owner of X, especially regarding the handling of the riots. This proposed regulatory push would likely be incorporated into a broader review of the Online Safety Act enacted last year.

Originally, the Act included provisions to address “legal but harmful” content but was amended due to free speech concerns, eliminating such clauses after pushback. Critics had worried that these provisions might enable future governments to censor contentious viewpoints.

Keep reading

Judges Back Meta in Vaccine “Misinformation” Battle, Free Speech Advocates Vow to Fight On

The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled this week in favor of Meta, Facebook’s parent company. The case was brought forward by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) over allegations that the social media giant violated free speech rights.

The lawsuit, initiated in August 2020 and later updated in December, claimed that Facebook, along with its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and two fact-checking entities, Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact site, was complicit in an unconstitutional act of privately exercising governmental censorship. CHD alleges that Facebook, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal institutions, is censoring content and discussions that the government is barred from suppressing under the First Amendment.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The plaintiff specifically accused these sides of working in tandem to unfairly stifle valid attempts to discuss vaccine safety on Facebook, often through indirect yet sensorial measures like the use of warning labels. According to CHD, this type of arrangement between public entities and private corporations represents a breach of the First Amendment due to its perceived status as “state action.”

Keep reading

London Calling: Police Chief Threatens To Arrest People Around The World For Online Speech

In its hit song London Calling the Clash warns:

“London calling to the faraway towns

Now that war is declared and battle come down

London calling to the underworld

Come out of the cupboard, all you boys and girls”

According to a new report, the British punk rock band may have been prophetic in 1979 in a way never foreseen in its apocalyptic lyrics.  This week, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said that the police will not necessarily confine its arrests for speech crimes to London or even the United Kingdom. Rowley suggests that Americans and other citizens could be extradited and brought to London for online postings.

London has been hit with days of violent protests over immigration policies, including attacks and arson directed at immigration centers. This violence has been fueled by false reports spread online about the person responsible for an attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded. Despite false claims about his being an asylum seeker, the culprit was an 18-year-old British citizen born to Rwandan parents.

News outlets and pundits have condemned the false reports and the violent protests. However, the police are moving to arrest those who are repeating false claims or engaging in inflammatory speech. Rowley is warning that they will not stop at the city limit or even the country’s borders.

He warned “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.”

Rowley was asked by a reporter about the criticism by Elon Musk and others over the response of the government. Musk noted a video of someone allegedly arrested for offensive online comments with a question, “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?”

Pundits and politicians in the United Kingdom have called for an investigation or the arrest of Musk for merely speaking publicly on the controversy.

The reporter said that high profile figures have been “whipping up the hatred,” and that “the likes of Elon Musk” are involved in the online speech. She then asked what the London police are prepared to do “when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind the keyboard who may be in a different country?”

Keep reading

Free Speech is Under Siege in Starmer’s UK

The UK is currently experiencing a massive attack on free speech, spearheaded by new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is encouraging police to use the full force of controversial British laws to crack down on social media posts.

The push for more online censorship has spanned many years, and different governments in the UK have gained new momentum with the recent protests and riots.

Emboldened by the crisis, officials seem to be using it to step up the already existing, multi-year effort to get social media companies to “cooperate” with the authorities.

It has now emerged that the government in London has started flagging content it deems to be “misinformation” – but also something referred to as “concerning content.”

X is among those who have been asked to remove posts which British officials consider to threaten the country’s national security; and while reports say Google, Meta, and TikTok are complying with these demands, X is said to be resisting them.

The accusations that social sites are “providing a platform for hate” while allegedly unaccountable for that is coming from cabinet members and MPs alike.

Science, Innovation, and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has revealed that he and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper are working to get content they consider “harmful” removed from the internet.

Recent actions in the UK regarding the apprehension of individuals for disseminating “incorrect information” highlight a concerning trend that threatens the very core of free speech—a foundational pillar of Western democracies.

These developments suggest an alarming escalation in government and law enforcement involvement in regulating online speech, which traditionally enjoys broad protections under democratic norms.

The use of existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 1986, to arrest individuals for their online speech is deeply troubling to civil liberties groups.

Keep reading

The GARMs Race: The House Moves Forward With its Investigation of Blacklisting Company

We have been discussing media rating systems being used to target advertisers and revenue sources for certain cites and companies. NewsGuard and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) have been criticized as the most sophisticated components of a modern blacklisting system targeting conservative or dissenting voices. I recently had a series of exchanges with NewsGuard after a critical column.  Now, the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is moving forward in demanding documents and records from leading companies utilizing the GARM system, a company that I have previously criticized. It is a welcomed effort for anyone who is concerned over the use of these blacklisting systems to curtail free speech. However, time is of the essence.

The demand to preserve evidence went to various companies, including Adidas, American Express, Bayer, BP, Carhartt, Chanel, CVS and General Motors.

In my new book, I discuss the rating systems as a new and insidious form of blacklisting. Notably, Elon Musk has now filed a lawsuit against GARM and may be able to get more evidence out in discovery on the operations of this outfit.

It is an effort to strangle the financial life out of sites by targeting their donors and advertisers.  This is where the left has excelled beyond anything that has come before in speech crackdowns.

Years ago, I wrote about the Biden administration supporting efforts like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) to discourage advertisers from supporting certain sites. All of the 10 riskiest sites targeted by the index were popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. That included Reason.org and a group of libertarian and conservative law professors who simply write about cases and legal controversies. GDI warned advertisers against “financially supporting disinformation online.” At the same time, HuffPost, a far-left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.

Keep reading