Tag: internet

Meet the Fart-Fetish Tranny Activist Behind the Latest Push to Shut Down the Internet

Your freedom of speech at this very moment is controlled by an alleged child groomer with a fart fetish.

We wish this were another one of our satirical articles. Sadly, it’s not. The above lede is true, and thanks to a fart-sniffing tranny, the best resource for understanding the real nature of transgenderism just got knocked offline.

The resource in question is KiwiFarms, a largely-obscure web forum founded in 2013 by former 8chan administrator Joshua Moon. For nine years, KiwiFarms has slowly grown on the margins of the Internet. But now, it may be no more, slain thanks to a coordinated assault from media, Big Tech, and the “trannissaries” — the highly-online transgender activists who are now the most aggressive shock troops of modern wokeism.

The loss of KiwiFarms is a great blow to both freedom of speech online, both because of the content the site contained and how it died.

KiwiFarms was a lightly-moderated web forum originally created to discuss Chris Chan, the autist, transgender, and all-around weirdo arrested last year for allegedly sexually violating his bedridden mother. The forum eventually expanded into discussion of other online figures and eventually became noteworthy as a reservoir of “forbidden” online content. In particular KiwiFarms has over the past several years emerged as one of the rare venues — of any size — hosting content critical of the contemporary sacred cow of transgenderism, even though many KiwiFarms users are themselves transsexuals (or perhaps because of that fact).

In a world where thought control is more omnipresent and domineering by the day, KiwiFarms was one of the only places letting people curate and share the truth about transgenderism. The forum documented how children are groomed by transsexuals, what “gender treatments” really entail, the sickening true nature of prominent transgender activists, and so forth.

Keep reading

California’s war on internet freedom

California appears to be waging war on internet freedom.

Last week, California governor Gavin Newsom signed off a new social-media transparency law that poses a serious threat to free speech. Known as AB 587, the law will force social-media companies to disclose their content-moderation policies, and submit detailed descriptions of their efforts to police speech in certain categories, including hate speech, extremism and harassment. Failure to demonstrate that they are regulating, editing and no doubt censoring what appears on their platforms could land social-media companies with big fines.

As noted by Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, the law will have draconian consequences. It effectively forces social-media companies to please the regulatory authorities now empowered to watch over them.

But that was not the only attack on online freedom launched by California lawmakers last week. Newsom also signed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act into law. This is arguably an even more troubling move than AB 587.

The Age-Appropriate Design Code Act aims to protect children from harmful online content, by insisting that children’s interests are prioritised when businesses are designing and developing their online services. This law effectively insists that all internet users should be treated like children.

After all, the law will apply to any business ‘likely to be accessed by a child’, or unable to establish the age of its consumers ‘with a reasonable level of certainty’ – which goes for most businesses. Businesses will therefore have to assume that the child, defined by the act as any individual under 18, is the default user

Keep reading

“The Regime of Censorship Being Imposed on the Internet is Dangerously Intensifying in Ways I Believe Are Not Adequately Understood”

U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald has condemned the Government, media and Big Tech for coordinating to censor dissent. Writing on Twitter on Tuesday, the Intercept cofounder blasted those who have taken advantage of a series of ‘crises’ as a pretext to conspire to suppress their ideological opponents. The searing Twitter thread is reproduced in full below.

The regime of censorship being imposed on the internet – by a consortium of Washington D.C. Democrats, billionaire-funded ‘disinformation experts’, the U.S. Security State, and liberal employees of media corporations – is dangerously intensifying in ways I believe are not adequately understood.

A series of “crises” have been cynically and aggressively exploited to inexorably restrict the range of permitted views and expand pretexts for online silencing and deplatforming. Trump’s election, Russiagate, January 6th, Covid and war in Ukraine all fostered new methods of repression.

During the failed attempt in January to force Spotify to remove Joe Rogan, the country’s most popular podcaster – remember that? – I wrote that the current religion of Western liberals in politics and media is censorship: their prime weapon of activism.

But that Rogan failure only strengthened their repressive campaigns. Dems routinely abuse their majoritarian power in D.C. to explicitly coerce Big Tech silencing of their opponents and dissent. This is Government censorship disguised as corporate autonomy.

There’s now an entire new industry, aligned with Dems, to pressure Big Tech to censor. Think tanks and self-proclaimed ‘disinformation experts’ funded by Omidyar, Soros and the U.S./U.K. Security State use benign-sounding names to glorify ideological censorship as neutral expertise.

Keep reading

The MrSleepyPeople Rabbit Hole

For nearly a decade, a strange channel by the name of “MrSleepyPeople” has been posting disturbing clips onto YouTube. And after diving deep into this rabbit hole, I realized that not only is this channel very real. But it’s even more twisted than it seems. If you recognize any of the women or men shown in this video, please reach out to SleepyPeopleTipLine@gmail.com . Identifying these people may be our best chance at putting a stop to this.

Pipergate: A YouTube Rabbit Hole

In December of 2017, a 10 year old girl named Piper would start a YouTube channel known as “Piper Rocks” which she would use to showcase her video editing skills. However, the edits within this channel were bizarre and highly disturbing, causing many to wonder who this child might be. Leading to one of the darkest rabbit holes we’ve ever explored.

The University of Massachusetts Lowell Bans Students From Sending or Viewing “offensive” Material Online

Most of the internet is apparently off-limits for students at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

The school’s Acceptable Use Policy, which governs the use of computing and networking resources, prohibits students from intentionally transmitting, communicating or accessing “offensive” material. Every month, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression highlights a university policy that hinders students’ free expression. Since most online content could be called offensive by someone, the policy has earned the dubious honor of FIRE’s August Speech Code of the Month.

The Supreme Court has explicitly held, time and time again, that speech cannot be restricted by the government merely because it offends others. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court held that burning the American flag was protected speech, explaining: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

In spite of such clear precedent, colleges and universities routinely ban offensive speech in campus speech codes, especially in IT policies. Whether a person is burning a flag at a protest or advocating for (or against) flag burning on Twitter, a ban on “offensive” speech calls for impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

UMass Lowell couldn’t possibly take action every time someone views or retweets something subjectively offensive over university wifi — every single student, and probably every professor, would be on trial. But a policy like this makes it all too easy for the university to crack down on select, disfavored speech.

Keep reading

World Economic Forum proposes AI to automate censorship of “hate speech” and “misinformation”

The World Economic Forum (WEF) continues to beat the drum of the need to somehow merge “AI” and humans, as a supposed panacea to pretty much any ill plaguing society and economy.

It’s never a sure bet if this Davos-based elite’s mouthpiece comes up with its outlandish “solutions” and “proposals” as a way to reinforce existing, or introduce new narratives; or just to appear busy and earn its keep from those bankrolling it.

Nevertheless, here we are, with the WEF turning its attention toward what’s apparently the burning issue in everybody’s life right now.

No – it’s not the runaway inflation, energy costs, and even food security in many parts of the world. For how dedicated to globalization the organization is, it’s strangely tone-deaf to what is actually happening around the globe.

And as people struggle to pay their bills and dread the coming winter, the WEF obliviously talks about “the dark world of online harms.”

Keep reading

The Dark Side of the Digital Revolution: “Slowly Closing its Grip on our Lives”

People love the digital revolution.  It allows them to work from home and avoid stressful commutes and office politics.  The young love their cell phones that connect them to the world. For writers the Internet offers, for now, a far larger audience than a syndicated columnist could obtain.  But while we enjoy and delight in its advantages, the tyranny inherent in the digital revolution is slowly closing its grip on our lives.

Use a gender pronoun or doubt an official narrative and you are blocked from social media.  The same corporations that are required by federal law to send us annual statements on how they protect our privacy also track our use of the Internet in order to build marketing profiles of us.  The FBI, CIA, and NSA track our use of the Internet to identify possible terrorists, school shooters, drug operations, and foreign agents.  Face identification cameras now exist on the streets of some cities.  DNA data bases are being built.  It goes on and on.

In China the digital revolution has made possible a social credit system.  People are monitored about what they say, what they read online, how they behave, where they go.  The profile that results determines the person’s rights or privileges.  A person who hangs out with the wrong crowd, criticizes the government, misbehaves, drives too fast, drinks too much, has a poor school or work attendance record might be denied a driving license, a passport, university admission, or could have access to bank account limited or blocked.

Keep reading

Bipartisan bill aimed at protecting kids online would require Big Tech to spy on them

A US Senate panel is debating two online safety bills that pertain to children, COPPA 2.0, and the Kids Online Safety Act, the latter of which has been described by observers as a scheme that will force online platforms to spy on children.

The original Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) aims to restrict the tracking and targeting of children under 13, while its update would expand to include those under 16.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) was introduced by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn, who said that it seeks to provide the solution to problems related to teenage mental health.

The way the senators envisaged this can be done is to improve children’s well-being online by requiring that social platforms provide kids and parents with “tools to help prevent the destructive impact of social media.”

The content that social sites would be tasked with preventing includes promotion of suicide, self-harm, substance abuse, eating disorders, etc., and non-compliance would make these companies legally liable.

They would also have to turn data over to researchers, introduce an age verification system, and set parental controls to the highest settings, to enable filtering or blocking.

But critics say that forcing social media companies to censor content and allowing parents to “spy” on children online is the wrong approach that doesn’t address the core problem of why children seek certain information on the web, while at the same time eroding their privacy.

Keep reading