Tag: social media

Banning TikTok is a Power Grab for the Deep State 

Legislators have made exceedingly clear that the intent of the bill they’re currently fast-tracking through Congress is “to finally ban TikTok in the United States,” as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), chair of the House Republican conference, proudly put it.

“TikTok must be banned,” concurred Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), the Republican chief deputy whip.

“I applaud the strong bipartisan effort to ban TikTok,” added Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“No one is trying to disguise anything,” clarified Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX). “We want to ban TikTok.”

Some of the bill’s proponents, like Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), have been less forthcoming than their colleagues. Sherrill strangely repeats the common yet obviously specious claim that the bill “doesn’t ban TikTok,” which is just pure politician sleight-of-hand: No, the text does not specifically provide for an immediate, automatic, blanket ban of TikTok, but it does provide for a fatal ultimatum to effectuate the ban of TikTok within six months, requiring TikTok to comply with U.S. demands for divestiture from its parent company, ByteDance, or face federal prohibition. So while the legislation would not impose the ban right away, it does create the exact statutory mechanism by which TikTok is named and targeted for banning in the very near future.

Ultimately, the desired end-result is the same one that has been long sought by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), the bill’s leading sponsor: “To ban TikTok … before it’s too late.” The forced divestiture is merely a mechanism to achieve this predetermined outcome.

Keep reading

Social media platform X bans account promoting a forthcoming documentary about FBI’s role in Whitmer ‘kidnapping plot’

In yet another example of how alleged “free speech” platform X (formerly Twitter) is anything but, a small team of independent documentary filmmakers have had their account “permanently” suspended this week as they prepare to release a documentary that they’ve been working on for over a year.

The topic: The 2020 “plot to kidnap and kill” Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, and the FBI’s extensive involvement therein.

The account was set up to promote the film, entitled Kidnap and Kill: An FBI Terror Plot, 14 months ago, in January of 2023.

“I paid for the account for over a year and even paid to promote the trailer on X buying twitter ads,” said director Christina Urso (also known as Radix Verum) in a post on Saturday.

“No email – nothing saying we violated TOS. We only used it to promote the trailer for the documentary.”

Keep reading

Anti-Misinformation AI Flagging Factual Stories As False.

Artificial intelligence hired by the Washington Secretary of State’s Office to monitor potential election ‘misinformation’ has flagged multiple factual stories from The Center Square regarding evidence of noncitizens illegally voting. Logically — a UK-based AI company — was contracted by the Washington Secretary of State last year to scan for “false content” on various social platforms, including X (formerly Twitter).

The state contract with Logically tasks them with using their AI tools to identify “harmful narratives” concerning Washington’s elections and generate reports for the Secretary of State’s review. Last summer, Logically generated several reports, which included stories published by The Center Square regarding Washington state’s election laws and an incident in which a foreign national avoided prosecution after illegally voting 28 times.

Keep reading

FROM MEMES TO DOXXING: UNMASKING NATO’S INFORMATION WARFARE STRATEGY

In November 2023, NATO’s “Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats” published a disturbing ‘working paper,’ “Humour in online information warfare: Case study on Russia’s war on Ukraine.” It received no mainstream attention. Yet, the contents offer unprecedented insight into the military alliance’s insidious weaponization of social media to distort public perceptions and manufacture consent for war. They also raise grave questions about online “trolling” of dissident voices over the past decade and beyond.

The working paper ostensibly “considers instances of humour put to effective use to counter disinformation and propaganda in online spaces, using Russia’s war on Ukraine.” It concludes, “humour-based responses…in the information space and in the physical domain have been found to deliver multiple clear benefits” for Ukraine and NATO.

Avowedly a “practical review seeking to identify examples of best practice from both government and civil society” for wider future application, the paper recommends Western states, militaries, and security and intelligence services master the art of online ridicule under the aegis of “counter-disinformation.”

It contends, “humour…reaches the parts that other countermeasures – like fact-checking or media user education – cannot.” Mass deployment of memes, moreover, “has the advantage of exploiting social media platform algorithms” and addressing “audiences that are not inclined to consume ‘boring’ products.”

As we shall see, the true value in weaponizing “humour” for NATO is distorting the battlefield reality in Ukraine – and future theaters of Western proxy conflict – for public consumption. Meanwhile, any social media user deviating from NATO-endorsed narratives can be subjected to intensive harassment, discrediting them and their message “among a wide sector of online audiences,” if not scaring them away from digital information spaces entirely. The working paper advocates the creation of an army of “private citizens” for the purpose.

Keep reading

New York Governor Pushes Big Tech To ‘Step Up’ By Removing Illicit Marijuana Shop Listings

New York’s governor is calling on big tech companies such as Google and Meta to “do the right thing” by taking steps to stop promoting illicit marijuana shops that have proliferated across the state.

During a press briefing on Wednesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said that social media and search engine companies are passively undermining the legal market that’s being implemented by allowing unlicensed retailers to be featured on their services, giving consumers the false impression that they are legitimate businesses.

‘They’re hurting our legal shops, and we’ve been in touch with these companies, these platforms, and we’ve told them flat out, ‘You need to change this,’” she said.

Hochul added that she doesn’t expect the tech companies to proactively identify and remove illicit shop listings on their own because “they would tell us that they’re not required to.” To that end, she said her message to the businesses is, “let us help you.”

“Let us give you the list of legal vendors. I know who’s legal. We all know who’s legal. And then you have a responsibility to make sure that you’re not posting the locations of illegal shops,” the governor said. “Now I’m calling on all these platforms to step up, do the right thing and be part of the solution. Don’t be complicit in helping jeopardize the public health and the livelihoods of these legitimate business owners.”

At Wednesday’s briefing, Hochul was joined by cannabis stakeholders and advocates, including representatives of organizations that published an open letter to the governor on Tuesday that raised the alarm about social media companies promoting unlicensed retailers.

Keep reading

Florida Legislature Passes Bill Banning Social Media for Kids Under 16, Raising Free Speech Concerns

The Florida Legislature passed a bill Thursday that would prohibit children under 16 from using social media — a ban free speech advocates say violates the First Amendment.

The bill in question, HB-1, passed the Florida Senate Thursday morning 23-14, on a mostly party-line vote, with 21 Republicans and 2 Democrats voting Yea, and 10 Democrats and 4 Republicans voting Nay, and 3 state senators not voting.

Shortly after 5 pm ET, the bill went back to the Florida House, where it had already passed in a previous form. The House voted to approve it once again, 108-7, with the 7 Nay votes all Democrats.

The text of the bill creates a new section in the Florida Statutes that requires social media platforms to prohibit minors who are younger than 16 years old from creating accounts, to “use reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of each account holder,” and to provide a disclaimer warning about social media being “harmful to mental health” and using “design features that have addictive qualities.” Violations of the law, if passed, would be deemed “an unfair and deceptive trade practice” and the state government can collect a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation. If a minor account holder asks for their account to be deleted, or a parent or legal guardian asks for a minor’s account to be deleted, and the platform does not comply with the request within the statutory deadline (5 or 10 days, respectively), it would be liable for $10,000 per violation, plus court costs and attorney fees.

The bill has attracted criticism from the right and left, one of several bills this session that have raised objections from free speech advocates and predictions that they cannot pass constitutional muster.

State Sen. Jason Pizzo (D) told Tampa area NBC affiliate WFLA he sympathized with parents’ concerns about the harmful effects of social media, himself the father of two teenage boys, but ultimately this is something that families, not government, needs to handle.

Keep reading

Noticing Black Violence On Social Media Is Not Racist And Calling It That Is Manipulation

Destructive behaviors are apparent in all races, but in the modern world, bad behavior is collectively blamed on the white race, aka “White supremacy.”

It doesn’t matter how many videos pop up on social media of other cultures and races committing heinous acts; liberals claim these behaviors are merely a “symptom” of white supremacy. The media and the majority of moderate America are content with believing this.

Viral videos depicting black people assaulting each other and looting stores all across America are accumulating millions of views over time. Still, instead of the masses concluding that the black community has more issues than a random white person thinking we all eat chicken, we have wanna-be saviors on both sides who claim noticing and to disapprove of our violent behaviors is a racist attack on the community as a whole.

Keep reading

Bill Gates Partner GAVI Vaccine Alliance Targets Online Memes

An international group promoting vaccines with ties to the Gates Foundation in going after memes. Whatever could make more sense?

But things here aren’t as haphazard as they might seem. Bill Gates is known, and rich, for two things: as the founder of one of the most oppressive (in terms of design, security, and historically predatory toward free-as-in-freedom competing technology) companies ever – Microsoft.

And the other is Gates – now as a billionaire – reinventing himself through his “uncanny valley” philanthropic efforts, centered and emanating from his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and focusing by and large on all sorts of vaccines, and – agriculture.

One of those involved, the GAVI Vaccine Alliance (that gets money from Gates) now wants to reframe memes – internet’s succinct expression of humor and satire – as “health disinformation super-spreaders.”

And we’ve heard this one before – this genre, that, in the digital age, might as well be considered as any other artistic format in previous times, is said to be capable of evading “fact checkers and content moderators” (i.e., censors).

In previous eras and authoritarian states, that would get the books with imagery and words characteristic of memes banned or burned.

So what could be the solution in the current era? And what does the big picture amount to?

Keep reading

FLASHBACK: Weaponized Narrative Is the New Battlespace

Conventional military dominance is still critical to the superpower status of the United States. But even in a military sense, it is no longer enough: if an American election can be controlled by an adversarial power, then stealth aircraft and special forces are not the answer. With lawmakers poised to authorize $160 million to counter Russian “fake news” and disinformation, and the CIA and the Congress examining meddling in the U.S. election and democracies around the world, it’s time to see weaponized narrative for what it is: a deep threat to national security.

Weaponized narrative seeks to undermine an opponent’s civilization, identity, and will by generating complexity, confusion, and political and social schisms. It can be used tactically, as part of explicit military or geopolitical conflict; or strategically, as a way to reduce, neutralize, and defeat a civilization, state, or organization. Done well, it limits or even eliminates the need for armed force to achieve political and military aims.

The efforts to muscle into the affairs of the American presidency, Brexit, the Ukraine, the Baltics, and NATO reflect a shift to a “post-factual” political and cultural environment that is vulnerable to weaponized narrative. This begs three deeper questions:

  • How global is this phenomenon?
  • Are the underlying drivers temporary or systemic?
  • What are the implications for an American military used to technological dominance?

Far from being simply a U.S. or U.K. phenomenon, shifts to “post-factualism” can be seen in Poland, Hungary, Turkey, France, and the Philippines, among other democracies. Russia, whose own political culture is deeply post-factual and indeed post-modern, is now ably constructing ironic, highly cynical, weaponized narratives that were effective in the Ukrainian invasion, and are now destabilizing the Baltic states and the U.S. election process.

Such a large and varied shift to weaponized narrative implies that the enablers are indeed systemic. One fundamental underpinning – often overlooked – is the accelerating volume and velocity of information. Cultures, institutions, and individuals are, among many other things, information-processing mechanisms. As they become overwhelmed with information complexity, the tendency to retreat into simpler narratives becomes stronger.

Keep reading

Progressives Are Ditching Free Speech To Fight ‘Disinformation’

In my column last week, I detailed how GOP lawmakers in several Western states have jettisoned their usual concerns about free speech and have passed laws that require cellphone users to disable government-mandated filters before having open access to apps. It’s a foolhardy endeavor done in the name of protecting The Children from obscenity, but at least these measures are narrow in scope (and mostly about posturing).

Meanwhile, progressives are hatching attacks on “disinformation” that threaten the foundations of the Constitution. Republicans share some responsibility, as they’ve backed various proposals targeting Big Tech out of pique about the censorship of conservative views. These ideas included limits on liability protections for posted content and plans to treat social media sites as public utilities.

Conservatives have already shown a willingness to insert government into speech considerations, so they are left flat-footed as leftists hatch plots to rejigger open debate. Whenever the Right plays footsie with big government, the Left then ups the ante—and conservatives end up wondering what happened. What is happening now is an effort to use legitimate concerns about internet distortions to squelch what we read and say.

Traditionally, Americans of all political stripes have accepted that—except for a few strictly limited circumstances—people can say whatever they choose. The nation’s libel laws impose civil penalties on those who have engaged in defamatory speech, but those laws are narrowly tailored so the threat of lawsuits doesn’t halt legitimate speech. This emanates from the First Amendment, which said Congress shall make “no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Such protections were applied to all governments, of course. The courts wrestle with gray areas (commercial and corporate speech, pornography, political advertising), but our nation thankfully has tilted heavily in the direction of upholding the broadest speech rights. This legal framework has been bolstered by a broad consensus among the citizenry that speech rights are sacrosanct. There always have been those people who want to police speech, but they have largely been outliers.

The internet and the information free for all that’s followed have challenged that consensus. When I first got into the journalism business, Americans had limited access to information. We could read the daily newspaper, which didn’t cover many issues and where editors served as gatekeepers. We could watch the network news at 6 p. or subscribe to magazines. There was no internet or cable news. Talk radio was in its infancy. Now anyone can post anything online and traditional news sources are struggling.

Keep reading