Tag: social media

Social Media Working to Protect ICE Clampdown in Minneapolis

There was a time, not terribly long ago, when the right claimed that the big social media companies weren’t just skewed to the left in terms of moderation, but that they were actually acting in the direct interests of the Democratic administration (House Judiciary Committee, 5/1/24).

When right-wing billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter, eventually rebranding it as X, the right believed that he’d show the world that the popular site was a tool of the Democratic agenda (New Yorker, 1/11/23). The move increased Musk’s profile as a conservative crusader against social progress and economic populism before his brief stint as President Donald Trump’s federal jobs hatchet man in 2025 (Roosevelt Institute, 5/29/25).

Before a forced sale by its Beijing-based parent company, TikTok was attacked by both Democrats and Republicans because of its ownership, with both sides claiming that this not only gave the Chinese government the ability to spy on Americans, but also to skew political discourse away from Washington’s interests (FAIR.org, 11/13/23, 5/8/24, 1/3/25).

At Meta, founder Mark Zuckerberg quickly tried to distance his company from the notion that it acted in tandem with the Biden administration. Politico (8/26/24) reported:

Mark Zuckerberg says he regrets that Meta bowed to Biden administration pressure to censor content, saying in a letter that the interference was “wrong,” and he plans to push back if it happens again.

Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan (Joe Rogan Experience, 1/10/25) that the Biden administration had been “calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true.” He asserted that Meta, and especially Facebook, “had gone too far in complying with such requests, and acknowledged that he and others at the company wrongly bought into the idea” (Axios, 1/10/25).

Keep reading

Wyoming Introduces First-Ever Foreign Censorship Shield Bill

Wyoming has taken a historic step to insulate American speech from foreign interference with the introduction of the Wyoming Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act, House Bill 0070, which would be the first US law designed to create a private right of action against foreign censorship enforcement.

Representative Daniel Singh introduced the bill, declaring that “foreign governments have decided they can threaten American citizens and American companies for speech that is protected by our Constitution…Wyoming is drawing a line in the sand.” The measure aims to establish Wyoming as a refuge for free expression and digital innovation, directly challenging what lawmakers describe as an escalating campaign of transnational censorship pressure.

The legislation provides that any Wyoming resident, business, or US person with servers in the state may sue foreign governments or international organizations that attempt to enforce censorship demands against them for First Amendment protected speech. Each violation could cost the offending entity at least $1 million or 10% of its US revenue, whichever is higher.

The GRANITE Act prohibits Wyoming courts and agencies from recognizing or enforcing foreign censorship judgments. It also forbids any state cooperation with such orders, including extradition requests or data demands linked to speech that is constitutionally protected in the US. Under the bill, no Wyoming authority may help a foreign state investigate, penalize, or prosecute individuals over lawful expression.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Keep reading

Group Chats About ICE Whereabouts Are Protected Speech. The FBI Is Investigating Anyway.

Group chats about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents aren’t illegal. But FBI Director Kash Patel doesn’t seem to care.

On Monday, Patel told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that the FBI was investigating a Signal group in which people had been chatting about ICE agents’ whereabouts.

The Trump administration has said that people are doxing federal agents, employing a term once reserved for the act of publishing private information about someone’s identity or address online. “Doxing” generally implies that this sharing is done with ill intent.

But there are all sorts of perfectly benign reasons why Americans—whether in the country legally or not—might want to keep tabs on where immigration authorities are going. Sharing this information allows people to protest, observe, or document ICE activity, or avoid run ins with ICE agents.

Chatting about ICE agent whereabouts is unambiguously speech that’s protected by the First Amendment. So the idea that the FBI would investigate on these grounds is worrying.

“There does not appear to be any lawful basis for this investigation,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “The First Amendment generally protects the publication of legally-obtained information, including much of what the Trump administration has labeled ‘doxxing.’ That protection extends to using an app to share information about ICE activity.”

In his interview with Johnson, Patel paid lip service to the First Amendment. Yet he also framed Signal chats pertaining to ICE whereabouts as inherently suspect and/or likely to lead to criminal actions. “You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm’s way,” he said, drawing a direct link between constitutionally protected activity and criminality.

Of course, trapping ICE agents and harming them would indeed be illegal. But the illegal part of that is the trapping, the plotting harm, and the harming, not merely the knowing where the agents are or chatting about where they are. And even if some individual ultimately uses the location information to inflict harm, it still would not make the mere sharing of that information illegal.

“The First Amendment has narrow exceptions for true threats and speech intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful action, but the government cannot trigger those exceptions simply by claiming that speech puts officials in harm’s way,” notes Terr. “The First Amendment also does not protect criminal conspiracy, but that requires evidence of an agreement to commit a specific crime and a substantial step toward carrying it out. No such evidence appears in the Signal messages that have been made public.”

Keep reading

WEIRDOS: Anti-ICE Agitators Conducted ‘Healing’ Flap Sessions On Signal

As the Trump administration ramps up deportations, Minnesota’s anti-ICE networks—previously exposed for coordinating obstruction and harassment of federal agents—are now turning to laughable “healing” rituals to cope with the heat.

Undercover journalist Cam Higby, who infiltrated these groups and revealed their tactics, has dropped fresh footage from the Signal group showing the bizarre underbelly of these America Last activists.

In one video, Higby highlights how “The Signal network held a healing & meditation space for their ICE rapid responders. It’s the funniest thing I’ve ever seen.”

He adds: “At one point the “zen expert” begins violently shaking his head and flapping his cheeks like Jar Jar Binks.”

Keep reading

Meta, TikTok, YouTube Face Trial Over Youth Addiction Claims

Three of the world’s biggest tech companies face a landmark trial in Los Angeles starting this week over claims that their platforms — Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok and Google’s YouTube — deliberately addict and harm children.

Jury selection starts this week in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

The selection process is expected to take at least a few days, with 75 potential jurors questioned each day through at least Thursday. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.

She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.

This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

Keep reading

Failing French President Macron Wants To Ban Under-15 Kids From Social Media – And He Wants It Done Fast

France’s Emmanuel Macron is a ‘leader’ in the quest for a cause.

A failing lame-duck President polling in the 16-18% range, fresh from the historic low of 11% approval, he needs some issue that will help him back into the good graces of the French voters who don’t trust him, and believe he has been a failure as head of state.

Usually, Macron tries to find it in ‘global warming’, but that con is not working anymore – so he tried to be a ‘warrior leader’ meddling in Ukraine, and lately sent an astonishing 15 soldiers from the 27th Mountain Infantry Brigade to Greenland.

What a Napoleon, right?

Now, it appears that ‘Le Petit Roi’ has found a new cause that can make him appear in a positive light for part of the French society.

Macron is pushing his government to ban children under the age of 15 from social media and – what’s more – he wants to ‘fast-track the legal process’.

He means to ensure that the ban can enter into force in September, at the start of the next school year.

CBS News reported:

“In a video released late Saturday by French broadcaster BFM-TV, Macron said he had asked his government to initiate an accelerated procedure so that the proposed legislation can move as quickly as possible and be passed by the Senate in time.

‘The brains of our children and our teenagers are not for sale’, Macron said. ‘The emotions of our children and our teenagers are not for sale or to be manipulated. Neither by American platforms, nor by Chinese algorithms’.”

Keep reading

Only ‘braindead’ believe WhatsApp is secure – Durov

Pavel Durov, the Russian tech entrepreneur who created the Telegram messenger app,  has claimed there is no doubt WhatsApp lacks any meaningful privacy, after its parent company was hit with a new lawsuit.

In a major class-action lawsuit filed against Meta Platforms, Inc. in a US district court last week, an international group of plaintiffs from countries including Australia, Brazil and India has accused the company of making false claims about the privacy of its WhatsApp service.

“You’d have to be braindead to believe WhatsApp is secure in 2026,” Durov posted on X on Monday, mocking suggestions that Meta cannot read users’ messages. “When we analyzed how WhatsApp implemented its ‘encryption’, we found multiple attack vectors.”

The lawsuit challenges the cornerstone of WhatsApp’s privacy promise: its default end-to-end encryption, which uses the Signal protocol. The plaintiffs allege that, contrary to its in-app claim that “only people in this chat can read, listen to, or share” messages, Meta and WhatsApp “store, analyze, and can access virtually all of WhatsApp users’ purportedly ‘private’ communications.” The complaint cites unspecified whistleblowers as the source of this information.

Keep reading

EXPOSED: Walz-Linked Radicals Running an ICE-Hunting Ring Like a Criminal Cartel

An online commentator known as PatriotDadEV2.0 is drawing renewed attention to allegations that a sophisticated and well-funded network has infiltrated the Minneapolis ICE Watch Signal chat, following disclosures by investigative journalist Cam Higby that are now circulating widely on X.

According to PatriotDadEV2.0, Higby obtained access to internal Signal chat conversations tied to the Minneapolis ICE Watch network and began releasing material publicly earlier this week.

The disclosures, PatriotDadEV2.0 said, include screen recordings showing the group’s member lists, which investigators and independent researchers have since analyzed.

“Yesterday, investigative journalist cam Higby began releasing information obtained after infiltrating the Minneapolis ice Watch Signal chat conversations, and the information that he has found and released to the public is absolutely incredible,” PatriotDadEV2.0 said.

“He began by releasing screen recordings of their members list, and investigators over on X have been taking that list and researching who these people are when they’ve decided to use their real names.”

PatriotDadEV2.0 claimed that the individuals identified through this process include elected officials, media figures, and people allegedly connected to Minnesota’s highest levels of government.

“We’re talking about local politicians. We’re talking about national journalists, and yes, even people connected directly to Governor Walz himself,” he said.

Keep reading

Senior FBI Official Describes ‘Surreal’ Call Where Kash Patel Dictated Social Media Strategy Right After Kirk Assassination

In the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination in September, FBI Director Kash Patel prioritized social media strategy over the bureau’s response to the killing, according to a senior FBI official.

On Thursday, The New York Times published accounts of Patel’s tenure from 45 people who either currently work at the FBI or left during President Donald Trump’s second term.

“Beginning with Trump’s selection of Patel, our sources narrated the events that most troubled them over the last year,” the Times stated. “Many details of what we learned are reported here for the first time.”

Kirk, the conservative activist and founder of TPUSA, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. In an unusual move for an FBI director, Patel traveled to the crime scene that day. Previously, it had been reported that Patel refused to get off the FBI plane in Provo until he was given a medium-sized raid jacket. In its report on Thursday, the Times cited an anonymous “senior executive” in the bureau who described a conference call on the day of the killing.

The official said Patel prioritized social media strategy over next steps in the investigation:

Whenever there’s a critical incident, one of the first things that happens is a conference call with everybody — all the executives, most of the field offices dial in. The director rarely speaks, because someone with situational awareness is leading the call. They’ll say: Here’s what happened. Here’s what we know. Here’s what we need. But we get on, and it’s just Kash berating the special agent in charge in Salt Lake. He’s super emotional.

And then it turns surreal. He and [then-Deputy Director Dan] Bongino start talking about their Twitter strategy. And Kash is like: I’m gonna tweet this. Salt Lake, you tweet that. Dan, you come in with this. Then I’ll come back with this. They’re literally scripting out their social media, not talking about how we’re going to respond or resources or the situation. He’s screaming that he wants to put stuff out, but it’s not even vetted yet. It’s not even accurate.

When I was an agent, I did hundreds of these cases. The initial information that comes in is always wrong. There’s too much coming in, and it takes time to vet. And it was obvious that Kash can’t understand that and doesn’t want to understand that.

Everyone on the call is just like: This guy is completely out of control. On another call, he said: When a crisis happens, the only thing you need to do is call me. The most important thing in any crisis is controlling the narrative. I was like: No, no, no. We actually have to do some work here. We’re going to have to investigate, to solve this.

Hours after Kirk’s assassination, Patel posted on X that the shooter was in custody, but later said the person had been released. The next day, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson turned himself in to authorities.

Keep reading

Rand Paul Turns Against Section 230, Citing YouTube Video Accusing Him of Taking Money From Maduro

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) has long been one of the few refreshing voices out of Washington, D.C., when it comes to free speech, including free speech on social media and elsewhere in the digital realm. He was one of just two senators to vote against FOSTA, the law that started the trend of trying to carve out Section 230 exceptions for every bad thing.

As readers of this newsletter know, Section 230 has been fundamental to the development and flourishing of free speech online.

Now, Paul has changed his mind about it. “I will pursue legislation toward” ending Section 230’s protections for tech companies, the Kentucky Republican wrote in the New York Post this week.

A Section 230 Refresher

For those who need a refresher (if not, skip to the next section): Section 230 of the Communications Act protects tech companies and their users from frivolous lawsuits and spurious charges. It says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” If someone else is speaking (or posting), they—not you or Instagram or Reddit or YouTube or any other entity—are legally liable for that speech.

Politicians, state attorneys general, and people looking to make money off tech companies that they blame for their troubles hate Section 230. It stops the latter—including all sorts of ambulance-chasing lawyers—from getting big payouts from tech companies over speech for which these companies merely served as an unwitting conduit. It stops attorneys general from making good on big, splashy lawsuits framed around fighting the latest moral panic. And it prevents politicians from being more in control of what we all can say online.

If a politician doesn’t like something that someone has posted about them on the internet, doesn’t like their Google search results, or resents the fact that people can speak freely—and sometimes falsely—about political issues, it would be a lot easier to censor whatever it is that’s irking them in a world without Section 230. They could simply go to a tech platform hosting that speech and threaten a lawsuit if it was not removed.

Tech platforms might very well win many such lawsuits on First Amendment grounds, if they had the resources to fight them and chose that route. But it would be a lot easier, in many cases, for them to simply give in and do politicians’ bidding, rather than fight a protracted lawsuit. Section 230 gives them the impetus to resist and ensures that any suits that go forward will likely be over quickly, in their favor.

But here’s the key: Section 230 does not stop authorities from punishing companies for violations of federal law, and it does not stop anyone from going after the speakers of any illegal content. If someone posts a true threat on Facebook, they can still be hauled in for questioning about it. If someone uses Google ads to commit fraud, they’re not magically exempted from punishment for that fraud. And if someone posts a defamatory rant about you on X, you can still sue them for that rant.

Keep reading