Tag: social media

The U.S. Intervenes Against EU Digital Surveillance

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has launched a lobbying campaign against the EU’s Digital Services Act. With this step, Americans have become the last line of defense for the free speech rights of EU citizens.

If, in the past, President Donald Trump often spoke of the European Union as “a tough nut to crack,” he couldn’t have been more accurate. Freedom-loving EU citizens know exactly what he meant. In Brussels, a bizarre mélange of control fetishism, economic dirigisme, and isolation from the outside world has developed — a combination that is no longer tolerable.

Not least, Brussels’s fight against free expression in the digital sphere has revealed the true intentions of the von der Leyen Commission: the recovery of narrative dominance and control over political dissidence — achieved by cold-bloodedly sacrificing citizens’ fundamental freedoms.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance already issued multiple warnings in the spring about a European censorship empire. In a speech to the Senate, he denounced European digital legislation as an attack on western liberties. In his address at the Munich Security Conference, he went so far as to suggest cutting ties with the Europeans if they did not reverse their illiberal, dictatorial trajectory.

Criticism Bounces Off

As usual, American criticism fell on deaf ears in Brussels. Although Brussels swallowed the bitter pill of an asymmetrical trade deal with the U.S. two weeks ago, both the hidden protectionism disguised as climate regulation and harmonization standards, as well as the repressive digital laws, remain intact. This is detrimental not only to free speech among Europeans but also for American companies — undoubtedly a key target of the EU censors.

The EU’s discriminatory ambitions through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the corresponding Digital Markets Act (DMA) primarily target U.S. communication platforms like X, Telegram, and Meta. If these platforms don’t conform to EU rules — granting access to internal communications and aiding Brussels’s surveillance efforts — they face billions in fines.

Much like Britain’s digital ID program, Brussels now masks its shamelessly invasive censorship with claims of youth protection and anti-hate measures. It’s tiresome to hear — but, as always, it’s about “their democracy,” or, to put it more accurately, a massive concrete barrier constructed to shield against the audacious citizen seeking to preserve privacy from an unbounded EU bureaucracy.

Keep reading

Canada’s prime minister tells Canadians to get their news from state-controlled media

In Canada, free speech is no longer a thing.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney utilized an August 5 press conference in British Columbia to dismiss concerns over Liberal legislation (Bill C-18) that would forbid news outlets from sharing news on social media, particularly during emergencies. The Canadian Commie globalist didn’t just refuse to rescind the aforementioned Bill C-18. No siree, he also urged his fellow Canucks to rely on government-funded CBC News for fair and unbiased information.

In light of the fact that heads of government steadfastly refuse to tell the truth, I have taken the liberty to translate Carney’s statement to more accurately reflect his actual meaning and beliefs. It would go: Comrades, trust me, the CBC is a reliable and highly credible news source that is as honest as our glorious revolution is long. And remember, unfettered free speech is the hallmark of a depraved and chaotic society, and invites input from those that don’t value the revolution above all.

This despite the fact that many objective observers deem the CBC to be a propaganda arm of the Liberal Party, from which it receives the vast majority of its funding, similar to the mainstream media’s relationship to the Democrat party in the United States.

But quashing free speech and association isn’t enough for the Carney government. Perish the thought! The ruling Liberal Party is also encouraging “LGBTQI+” refugees to move to Canada by offering them taxpayer-funded income for up to 12 months in addition to various other programs.

Turns out, the Babylon Bee’s allegedly satiric post referencing President Trump’s desire to annex Canada and label it “Gay North Dakota” was spot-on. (Corollary: it’s shocking how many “conspiracy theories” have turned out to be facts.)

So, once again, you have a Western nation trashing its own citizens and traditions in favor of foreigners, especially those with sexual kinks.

Keep reading

Court Says UW-Madison Social Media Censorship Illegal

The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s attempt to suppress an animal rights advocate’s comments on its social media pages has been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, reinforcing the limits of government control over public discourse online.

Madeline Krasno, a UW-Madison graduate and former lab worker who spoke out against the school’s animal research practices, brought a lawsuit in 2021 after discovering that her posts were either blocked or hidden from the university’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.

The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor on August 1, concluding that the university violated her First Amendment rights by silencing her viewpoint.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Now faced with the ruling, UW-Madison must decide whether to revise its moderation policies, disable comment functions on its social platforms, or try to escalate the case to the US Supreme Court. University officials have not indicated which direction they plan to take.

Krasno’s criticism comes from her time spent inside the university’s primate lab, where she worked as an undergraduate. She described disturbing conditions, saying she witnessed monkeys kept in isolation, sometimes escaping, and often displaying stress or aggression after being subjected to research. When she later tried to express these concerns publicly through university-run social media, her posts disappeared.

At one point, the university placed an account-level restriction on her Instagram profile, preventing any of her comments from being seen by the public. Even after that restriction was lifted, the school relied on automated filters that blocked posts containing words such as “lab,” “monkeys,” “torture,” “animal testing,” and “primate.”

Keep reading

“Chat Control” – EU Proposal To Scan All Private Messages Gains Momentum

A controversial European Union proposal dubbed “Chat Control” is regaining momentum, with 19 out of 27 EU member states reportedly backing the measure.

The plan would mandate that messaging platforms, including WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram, must scan every message, photo and video sent by users starting in October, even if end-to-end encryption is in place, popular French tech blogger Korben wrote on Monday.

Denmark reintroduced the proposal on July 1, the first day of its EU Council presidency. France, once opposed, is now in favor, Korben said, citing Patrick Breyer, a former member of the European Parliament for Germany and the European Pirate Party.

Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Italy and Spain are also in favor, while Germany remains undecided. However, if Berlin joins the majority, a qualified council vote could push the plan through by mid-October, Korben said.

A qualified majority in the EU Council is achieved when two conditions are met. First, at least 55 percent of member states, meaning 15 out of 27, must vote in favor. Second, those countries must represent at least 65% of the EU’s total population.

Keep reading

Judge Strikes Down California Deepfake Censorship Law

California’s attempt to regulate political speech on major social media platforms has been blocked in federal court, with a judge ruling the state’s latest “deepfake” law clashes with protections already established by Congress.

Assembly Bill 2655 attempted to compel certain large platforms to track down and delete “materially deceptive content” about candidates, election officials, and officeholders.

Supporters described it as a safeguard against manipulated media. The companies targeted, including X and Rumble, argued it was an attempt to turn them into agents of government censorship.

Senior US District Judge John Mendez sided with the platforms and did not even need to reach the argument of constitutional free speech questions to strike down the measure.

He found the federal Communications Decency Act [CDA] already shields online services from punishment over third-party content.

“No parts of this statute are severable because the whole statute is preempted,” Mendez said in court. “No parts of A.B. 2655 can be salvaged.”

The ruling applies to the companies in the lawsuit, and his earlier order freezing enforcement of the law remains in effect statewide until he issues a formal opinion.

For Mendez, the law punished companies for doing something they are “clearly protected by [the CDA] from doing.”

The court also cast doubt on another state law, Assembly Bill 2839, which prohibits false or misleading digital communications aimed at election workers, officials, voting equipment, or candidates in the months leading up to an election. That measure is also on hold, and Mendez signaled he doubts it will survive judicial review.

“Anybody can sue,” he said. “I can sue. If I see the video, under this law, I can sue.” He warned that such a rule chills protected speech and noted the state had not shown it was using the least speech-restrictive approach possible.

Keep reading

Democrats Plan to Spend Tens of Millions of Dollars to Fund Hundreds of Content Creators

Democrats are planning to spend tens of millions of dollars to spin narratives on social media as part of a $110.5 million fundraising effort, according to images of slides from a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) donor event obtained by Breitbart News.

Under a heading “Urgent Off-Year Funding Needs” on one slide, it states the DCCC looks to raise $10 million for social media and content creation, $20 million for “Accountability work,” $15 million for “Voter Registration,” $5 million for “Recruitment” and “Primary Engagement,” and $2 million for “Research” and a “Rapid Response Infrastructure.”

One goal is to enlist at least 667 content creators, with the aim of reaching 83 million Americans and drawing 6.6 million engagements, per another slide that focuses on content creation. The program aims to engage at least 167 “Non-Political Creators” and 8 “Vetted Creators for ads in every target state.”

Keep reading

Jasmine Crockett Sees Congress As The Side Hustle To Her Full-Time ‘Influencer’ Gig

When Democratic firebrand Jasmine Crockett agreed to be profiled by The Atlantic, she probably expected just another boot-licking puff piece that would add to her leftist street cred and fundraising numbers. What she got was a surprisingly balanced account of her background and meteoric rise in a collapsing political party, which is why she reportedly tried to spike the article.

Perhaps Crockett was incensed by the embarrassing anecdote that staff writer Elaine Godfrey related at the very beginning of the piece. During her quixotic effort to be named the leading Democrat on the House Oversight Committee last month, Crockett whined that she was “[feeling] a little used” by her colleagues. When Godfrey asked her about her failure to get the post, she said, “It’s like, there’s one clear person in the race that has the largest social-media following,” as if that explained why she should be handed power and responsibility on a plate.

Godfrey’s journalistic honesty has accidentally revealed an inconvenient truth about the new blood on the American left. Crockett and her ilk aren’t true public servants, but social media influencers who see representing the American people as a mere side hustle. This narcissistic approach to their duties makes them dangerous to the body politic.

A Lack of Substance

One of the more disturbing aspects of social media is how it grants unscrupulous users the ability to craft a false identity for themselves. For Crockett, this persona is the “tough black girl from the Dallas streets.” She regularly hurls viral insults at people such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, or Hispanics who voted for Donald Trump.

Though she wrongly characterizes these antics as “forthrightness,” Godfrey refuses to buy fully into Crockett’s charade. She reminds her readers that Crockett hails from St. Louis, where she attended a private high school before going to Rhodes College, a small liberal arts school in Tennessee. The closest Crockett ever got to life on city streets was a role in the musical “Little Shop of Horrors” in her college days.

Crockett credits her entry into law and then politics to an incident at Rhodes in which she and a few other black students received threatening and racist letters from an anonymous source. According to this tale, the black female attorney hired by the college to look into the matter became Crockett’s “shero” and inspiration. Oddly, Godfrey could not fully confirm any of these details; Crockett could not even remember the name of this “sheroic” attorney. All in all, this origin story sounds like a social justice warrior’s Instagram fantasy.

When it comes to Crockett’s policy goals, Godfrey is at a loss; apart from mentioning her law firm’s defense of Black Lives Matter demonstrators and a vague reference to her support for “criminal justice reform” while in the Texas state legislature, the reader gains no insight into what issues concern her or those she represents. Instead, we are treated to a description of her “unofficial leadership” of more than 50 Texas Democrats who fled their state to D.C. in 2021 in order to stymie legislation meant to tighten and clarify voting rules, a stunt that guaranteed Crockett a career on the national level while frustrating more moderate Democrats.

But Crockett clearly knows how to get clicks and likes. Godfrey explains, “On TikTok and Instagram … she monitors social-media engagement like a day trader checks her portfolio,” which is strange behavior for a legislator. The lack of substance behind Crockett’s style reveals that for her, government is not a sacred trust between her and her constituents, but a stage on which she can strut and receive applause.

Keep reading

Why Parents Are Suing Snapchat Over Fentanyl Deaths

Over and over, Amy Neville forces herself to tell people what happened to her 14-year-old son.

“I relive it. … I’m out there sharing the hardest thing that’s ever happened in my life,” she said. “It’s worth it, because I know we’re saving lives.”

Neville, 52, wiped away tears as she spoke those words during an interview with The Epoch Times on June 23. That day marked five years since her son, Alexander Neville, unknowingly ingested fentanyl and died—a tragedy that could easily befall any family, she said.

Through the nonprofit Alexander Neville Foundation, the grieving mother shares her personal pain with other parents. By her estimation, Amy Neville has given a couple hundred presentations in person and online; about 300,000 people have heard her warnings about the dangers that lurk on social media, leading to deaths such as Alex’s.

Neville also serves as the lead plaintiff in a groundbreaking court case that could affect the way Big Tech operates in the United States.

She believes that changes are needed to prevent many deaths among young people who, like Alex, flock to Snapchat and other online platforms.

Neville and her husband are among 63 fentanyl victims’ families suing Snapchat. They allege that the platform is a defective product and a public nuisance and that it should be held responsible for fentanyl overdose deaths, poisonings, and injuries.

Snap Inc., parent company of Snapchat, “vehemently denies” the allegations, a judge noted.

In the suit, the Social Media Victims Law Center represents dozens of families whose children “died of fentanyl poisoning from contaminated drugs purchased on Snapchat,” Matthew Bergman, the Seattle-based center’s founding attorney, told The Epoch Times.

Snap did not respond to a request for comment.

Keep reading

And There It Was — One Sentence in Declassified Docs Proves We All Were Censored to Protect Hillary

It’s hard to fathom the evil that led to creating fake intelligence to frame then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as a Russian spy and traitor to his country. We’ve seen in recently declassified documents that Hillary Clinton didn’t do this alone. She commanded dozens, if not hundreds, of willing participants, including the George Soros foundation, President Barack Obama, the FBI, the weaponized intelligence agencies, and others, to bring Donald to his knees. 

Buried deep in the latest tranche of declassified documents called the Durham annex report, however, a deep state hawk has found something that is equally or more evil than changing intelligence to manipulate one election’s outcome. They created a way to take over elections in perpetuity. 

Mike Benz, a former State Department official in the Trump 45 administration who now runs the Foundation for Freedom Online, found what is tantamount to the Rosetta stone for the Censorship Industrial Complex. 

And it’s right here: “The point is making the Russian play a U.S. domestic issue. Say something like a critical infrastructure threat for the election to feel menace [sic] since both POTUS and VPOTUS have acknowledged the fact [that] IC would speed up searching for evidence that is regrettably still unavailable.”

In a series of posts on X, Benz laid out why this sentence from an email from a Soros Open Society Eurasian official told the story of how they planned to get Trump even after they’d lost the election. They magic’d up a system whereby elections would now become “critical infrastructure” run by the feds.

Keep reading