Tag: social media

Inside the secret LAPD club of Gavin Newsom’s nightmares… and their evidence a riot crisis was waiting to happen

Los Angeles cops have a private chatroom — and California‘s Democratic leaders won’t like what they’re saying.

The Instagram group ‘Defend the LAPD’ allows officers and commanders to talk freely about what’s really going on in the streets of America’s second-biggest city, where cops clash daily with anti-government rioters.

The Daily Mail gained exclusive access to the 8,500-member club and spoke to its organizers — and the views they presented were a stark rebuke to Gov Gavin Newsom and other leaders of the Democrat-run state.

Despite what their bosses say, LAPD officers broadly support the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard to protect federal buildings amid a wave of sometimes violent protests against immigration raids, says the group.

Members also expressed alarm at LA Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, for allegedly taking command of their control room, delaying the deployment of officers, and putting federal agents and the public in danger.

They also accused media outlets of one-sided coverage of the protests, by focussing on heavy-handed policing while overlooking the threat that some violent activists posed to cops and the public.

More broadly, they say the city has ‘quietly defunded’ the LAPD since the George Floyd protests of 2020, and that today’s force is understaffed, underresourced, and cannot handle the crisis exploding on the streets.

The revelations come as US Marines head to Los Angeles, as part of a federal strategy to quell the protests against immigration raids, which are a signature effort of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Keep reading

European Union Unveils International Strategy Pushing Digital ID Systems and Online Censorship

As part of a broader campaign to expand its global influence in the digital era, the European Union has introduced a sweeping International Digital Strategy that leans heavily on centralized infrastructure, digital identity systems, and regulatory frameworks that raise significant questions about online freedoms and privacy.

The European Commission, in announcing the initiative, stressed its intent to collaborate with foreign governments on a range of areas, prominently featuring digital identity systems and what it calls “Digital Public Infrastructure.”

These frameworks, which have garnered widespread support from transnational institutions such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, are being marketed as tools to streamline cross-border commerce and improve mobility.

However, for privacy advocates, the strategy raises red flags due to its promotion of interoperable digital ID programs and a surveillance-oriented model of governance under the guise of efficiency.

According to the strategy documents, one of the EU’s objectives is to drive mutual recognition of electronic trust services, including digital IDs, across partner nations such as Ukraine, Moldova, and several Balkan and Latin American countries. This aligns with the EU’s ambitions to propagate its model of the Digital Identity Wallet, an initiative that privacy campaigners warn could entrench government control over personal data.

The strategy also outlines measures to deepen cooperation on global digital regulation, including laws that govern online speech.

While framed as promoting “freedom of expression, democracy, and citizens’ privacy,” these efforts are closely tied to the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates extensive platform compliance and systemic risk monitoring.

Keep reading

America’s Dirtiest Sec of State and Dem Candidate For MI Governor Pulls A “Kamala” and DESTROYS Her Political Career With One Stupid “X” Post About LA Rioters

On any given day, America’s dirtiest secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson (MI-D), is potentially the most unpopular elected official on “X.”  It doesn’t matter which woke, or anti-Republican message she’s sharing on “X,” Michigan’s crooked secretary of state is consistently called out for her dishonestly and her ridiculous, anti-American views.

Yesterday, while defending the violent rioters in Los Angeles, CA, Michigan’s Democrat SOS Jocelyn Benson potentially ended her political career with a ridiculous post on “X” where she claimed she was praying for the safety of the rioters. Kamala Harris likely helped to end her political career in June 2020, when she foolishly asked her supporters on “X” to “chip in” to help bail out criminals who were destroying the city of Minneapolis over the drug overdose-caused death of George Floyd.

Thanks to Kamala’s promotion of the bail fund, George Howard, an alleged domestic abuser, was released from jail on a $1,500 bond that was paid by the organization Kamala was touting. Two weeks later, Howard was involved in a road rage incident where he was arrested and charged with the murder of a 38-year-old man. He would have still been in jail had it not been for Kamala Harris trying to publicly flaunt her support for the BLM rioters by asking people to bail them out of jail. This serious issue repeatedly surfaced during Kamala’s failed 2024 presidential campaign.

Keep reading

Musk Deletes X Post Accusing Trump of Epstein Ties, Deletes Another Calling for Impeachment

The internet lit up this week after Elon Musk ignited a firestorm by going after President Donald Trump—and then quickly backed down.

What started as a disagreement over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB)—a sweeping tax and trade reform plan aimed at supercharging American manufacturing, reducing the deficit, and cutting off the globalist money faucet—turned into something far darker.

The feud escalated when Musk, in a now-deleted post on X (formerly Twitter), accused Trump of being involved in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Musk wrote on X, “Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!”

He continued, “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.”

Musk even shared a decades-old video of President Trump speaking briefly with Epstein at a Mar-a-Lago party in 1992—footage that has circulated for years and proves absolutely nothing.

Musk calmed down Thursday night after going off on Trump in several nasty posts on X. Responding to a poster with (at the time) 184 followers who pleaded with Musk to “cool off” in response to Musk posting as part of his fight with Trump he would decommission the Dragon space capsule relied on by NASA to shuttle astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station, Musk said, “Good advice. Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”

A few minutes later Musk responded positively to a plea for peace by Bill Ackman who posted, “I support @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk and they should make peace for the benefit of our great country. We are much stronger together than apart.”

Just as suddenly as the posts appeared, they vanished. By early Saturday morning, Musk’s tweet had been deleted.

Keep reading

Irish Government Admits No Free Speech Impact Assessment for “Misinformation” Laws

Irish authorities have moved ahead with extensive legislation aimed at tackling “misinformation,” yet they have not examined whether such measures might undermine free expression. The Department responsible for communications, media, and environmental policy has acknowledged that no analysis has been carried out to assess the consequences for free speech.

Responding to a media query from Gript, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications plainly admitted: “The Department has not undertaken any analysis or research on the potential impact of mis/disinformation laws on free speech.”

Despite this lack of evaluation, the government continues to defend its strategy. Speaking outside Government Buildings, Taoiseach (Prime Minster) Micheál Martin insisted the effort to curb online falsehoods is justified, arguing that some speech doesn’t merit protection. “It’s not freedom of speech, really, when it’s just a blatant lie and untruth, which can create a lot of public disquiet, as we have seen,” he said.

Martin downplayed the idea that regulating disinformation represents any serious threat to expressive freedoms, stating: “There are very strong protections in our constitution and in our laws and freedom of speech.” He added, “I wouldn’t overstate the impact on clamping down on blatant lies online as a sort of incursion or an undermining of freedom of speech.”

When pressed on whether the absence of impact studies was irresponsible, Martin referenced a recent RTÉ radio segment about social media claims related to a shooting in Carlow. “There was a researcher on identifying the blatant misinformation on truths and lies surrounding what happened in Carlow,” he said. “So I do think it’s absolutely important that government focuses on this issue.”

Keep reading

France Just Redefined Global Speech on TikTok

TikTok’s decision to block the “SkinnyTok” hashtag across its entire platform followed direct intervention from the French government, revealing how national pressure is increasingly shaping global online speech, even when the content in question is not illegal.

French Digital Minister Clara Chappaz just claimed victory, celebrating the platform’s removal of the term often associated with extreme dieting and weight loss trends. “This is a first collective victory,” she wrote on X after TikTok confirmed the ban was now global.

A spokesperson for the platform stated the hashtag was removed as part of ongoing safety reviews and due to its“link to “unhealthy weight loss content.”

While the move has been portrayed as a step forward for user safety, particularly for young audiences, it also raises deeper concerns about the role of governments in controlling speech on private platforms.

The “SkinnyTok” content, though considered by some to be harmful, does not violate any laws. Still, the French government managed to pressure TikTok into removing it worldwide. This maneuver highlights a growing trend in which authorities seek to influence online content standards beyond their own borders, often using platforms as enforcers.

Rather than work through the European Commission or wait for outcomes from the ongoing investigation under the Digital Services Act (DSA), France chose to confront TikTok directly.

Keep reading

BlueSky Is Just Another Weapon in Big Tech’s War Against Truth

Remember when Jack Dorsey left Twitter, claimed he had “seen the light,” and launched Blue Sky to “decentralize social media”? Yeah, turns out that was just another bait-and-switch by Big Tech’s elite. The same Silicon Valley players who censored the truth about COVID, vaccines, election fraud, and even the gospel, are now peddling “decentralization” like a cheap used car.

But here’s the reality: Blue Sky is a centralized con disguised as a digital rebellion.

On The Andres Segovia Show, @theandressegovia laid it bare: “This is the place I’ve received the most threats on any platform.” That includes X, Gab, even Instagram. But on Blue Sky? Threats. Not criticism. Not trolling. Threats. And the accounts issuing them? Still up. That tells you everything you need to know about how this platform operates.

Now enter @YossiShow—he tested the app, documented 37 screenshots, filed 9 reports on pornographic content, and was met with radio silence. “Ghosted my April 15th and 17th emails,” he said. Zero accountability. Zero action. But the most important quote? “Blue Sky’s a free speech fraud. Vague rules, ignored threats, rampant porn. They dodge accountability… Transparency is key, they’re allergic.”

Let’s cut to the chase. This isn’t about broken code or lazy developers. This is about control. Blue Sky doesn’t want to be a free speech platform. They want to appear to be one—just enough to bait the disillusioned and funnel us back into the surveillance state. They’re pulling from the same playbook we’ve seen over and over again: promise liberty, deliver tyranny.

Keep reading

EU Tech Laws Erect Digital Iron Curtain

Over the past decades, Europe has created little of real relevance in terms of technological platforms, social networks, operating systems, or search engines.

In contrast, it has built an extensive regulatory apparatus designed to limit and punish those who have actually innovated.

Rather than producing its own alternatives to American tech giants, the EU has chosen to suffocate existing ones through regulations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The DSA aims to control the content and internal functioning of digital platforms, requiring the rapid removal of content deemed “inappropriate” in what amounts to a modern form of censorship, as well as the disclosure of how algorithms work and restrictions on targeted advertising. The DMA, in turn, seeks to curtail the power of so-called gatekeepers by forcing companies like Apple, Google, or Meta to open their systems to competitors, avoid self-preferencing, and separate data flows between products.

These two regulations could potentially have a greater impact on U.S. tech companies than any domestic legislation, as they are rules made in Brussels but applied to American companies in an extraterritorial manner. And they go far beyond fines: they force structural changes to the design of systems and functionalities, something that no sovereign state should be imposing on foreign private enterprise.

In April 2025, Meta was fined €200 million under the Digital Markets Act for allegedly imposing a “consent or pay” model on European users of Facebook and Instagram, without offering a real alternative. Beyond the fine, it was forced to separate data flows between platforms, thereby compromising the personalized advertising system that sustains its profitability. This was a blatant interference in its business model.

That same month, Apple was fined €500 million for preventing platforms like Spotify from informing users about alternative payment methods outside the App Store. The company was required to remove these restrictions, opening iOS to external app stores and competing payment systems. Once again, this was an unwelcome intrusion and a direct attack on the exclusivity-based model of the Apple ecosystem.

Other companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and even X are also under scrutiny, with the latter particularly affected by DSA rules, having been the target of a formal investigation in 2023 for alleged noncompliance in content moderation.

Keep reading

Retired UK Constable Detained for Social Media Post Receives Financial Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment

Under leftist Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the United Kingdom is sinking ever deeper in the censorship quagmire, signaling an authoritarian future where free-speech will be completely criminalized.

But that is not to say there has been no pushback from the British society.

Now, a retired police constable has been awarded some measure of justice in the form of compensation of £20,000 [US$ 27,000] after a wrongful arrest over one social media post in which he warned about rising anti-Semitism.

The Telegraph reported:

“Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham, Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X. Kent Police officers searched his home and commented on his ‘very Brexity’ book collection. The force detained the 71-year-old for eight hours, interrogated and issued him with a caution after officers visited his home on Nov 2 2023.”

Keep reading

EU Commissioner Defends EU’s Censorship Law While Downplaying Brussels’ Indirect Influence Over Online Speech

As the European Union moves aggressively to shape online discourse through the Digital Services Act (DSA), EU Commissioner for Technology Henna Virkkunen has been deflecting scrutiny abroad, pointing fingers at the United States for what she describes as a more extensive censorship regime.

Relying on transparency data, she argues that platforms like Meta and X primarily remove content based on their own terms and conditions rather than due to DSA directives. But this framing misrepresents how enforcement works in practice, and downplays the EU’s systemic role in pushing platforms toward silence through legal design, not open decrees.

Virkkunen highlighted that between September 2023 and April 2024, 99 percent of content takedowns occurred under platform terms of service, with only 1 percent resulting from “trusted flaggers” authorized under the DSA. A mere 0.001 percent were direct orders from state authorities.

On paper, this paints a picture of platform autonomy. But in reality, the architecture of the DSA ensures that removals appear “voluntary” precisely because they are incentivized by looming regulatory consequences.

Under the DSA, platforms are held legally accountable for failing to remove certain types of content.

This liability drives a strong incentive to err on the side of over-removal, creating a culture where companies preemptively censor to minimize risk. Virkkunen frames these decisions as internal, but in truth, many of them reflect anticipatory compliance with European legal expectations.

The fact that content is flagged and removed “under T&Cs” does not indicate independence, it reflects a strategy of risk avoidance in response to EU enforcement pressure.

This dynamic is by design. The DSA doesn’t rely on high numbers of direct takedown orders from governments. Instead, it outsources content control to the platforms themselves, embedding speech restrictions in the guise of corporate policy.

The regulatory burden falls on private actors, but the agenda is shaped by Brussels. Delegating enforcement doesn’t dilute state influence; it conceals it. The veneer of decentralization does not remove the fact that the state has created the framework and exerts ongoing leverage over what platforms consider acceptable.

Keep reading