Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Paper Showing Earth’s Atmosphere Has Become ‘Saturated’ With Carbon Dioxide and More Carbon Emissions Won’t Make Any Difference Is Retracted Following Positive Coverage

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 13, 2025

Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.

Many scientists contend that above certain levels the ability of CO2 to warm within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum falls off a logarithmic cliff. Recently, eight Taiwanese scientists led by Professor Peng-Sheng Wei found that the sensitivity of the climate to a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels from 100 to 400 parts per million (ppm) was “negligibly small” at 0.3°C. Current levels of CO2 are around 420 ppm. Seven Austrian scientists recently concluded that a future doubling of CO2 showed “no increase in the IR [infrared] absorption for the 15 u-central peak”. At most, it was stated, this could lead to warming of 0.5°C. Yet in spite of this, Elsevier decided to retract Kubicki’s paper with only a few words of explanation, a decision that is likely to send shock waves through any group of scientists seeking to examine the role of saturation of gases in the atmosphere.

The retraction reads: “Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigour and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science. After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.”

Retraction in a scientific journal is a serious matter, relatively rare and potentially damaging to the reputation of authors. According to Elsevier’s withdrawal policies, articles may be retracted “to correct errors that impact the findings reported by an article where they are too extensive in the view of the editors to publish a correction, or due to infringements of Elsevier’s journal policies, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like”. None of these reasons for withdrawing the Kubicki paper have been given. Instead there is the pompous reference to a ”fall beneath the high standards expected”, supposedly confirmed by additional unnamed “experts”. Further details about the retraction may emerge given the important issues raised by Elsevier’s action.

Whatever the real reasons behind this retraction, it will not be the first science paper that has met this fate following publicity in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent widespread interest on social media.

In January 2022, a group of physics scientists led by Profession Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University published a paper in a Springer Nature journal that considered past weather trends. They concluded that the idea we’re in the throes of a ‘climate emergency’ was not supported by the facts. The paper attracted little attention outside academic circles until September 14th when the Daily Sceptic reported on it – and our promotion of the story on X resulted in 9,000 retweets. The story was covered by the Australian and Sky News Australia, after which attacks were launched by activist scientists and journalists such as Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and Graham Readfearn of the Guardian. After a year of lobbying, Springer Nature retracted the paper claiming it no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions. This surprised many, not least because much of the data came from the International Panel on Climate Change. Science writer Dr. Roger Pielke published a number of leaked emails surrounding the affair and concluded: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”

In September 2023, a departing academic, Dr. Patrick Brown, came clean about a paper he’d written in Nature saying that climate change was increasing the risk of wildfires in California. “I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival Science, want to tell,” he explained. These key aspects, of course, include considering the role of arsonists and forest management. For its part, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can find little or no evidence of human-caused climate change affecting ‘fire weather’ to date and going forward to 2100. In Brown’s view, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world “and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change”.

The Editor-in-Chief of Nature Magdalena Skipper reacted furiously to Brown’s comments, accusing him of “poor research practices” that are “highly irresponsible”, according to the Daily Mail. Despite all the controversy, Brown’s paper has not been retracted.

Dr. Matthew Wielicki had a senior position in the Geological Sciences department of the University of Alabama. His parents were academics and he grew up on a Californian university campus surrounded by freely-exchanged competing ideas. He only ever wanted to be an academic but he gave it up during Covid, seemingly disgusted at the turn against free speech in American universities and the effect it has had on climate science. If you speak out against the accepted narrative “you are a pariah in this community”, he said. Climate change is a “taboo” subject in academia and there is a “disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in mainstream media is”. It isn’t about finding the truth in open discussion – It’s about silencing those who disagree with you, he observed.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

French Greens leader calls for X to be banned in EU

National Secretary of The Ecologists – Europe Ecology The Greens, Marine Tondelier © AP / Louise Delmotte
RT | January 14, 2025

Marine Tondelier, secretary-general of The Ecologists – Europe Ecology The Greens, has called for the social media platform X to be banned across the European Union, at least during election periods, arguing that it plays a role in shaping public opinion in ways that can threaten democracy.

Speaking on RTL’s Le Grand Jury program on Sunday, Tondelier expressed concerns about the influence of social media on democratic processes amid heightened tensions between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and EU officials who accuse the US-based billionaire of meddling in European politics.

“It’s not a question of freedom of expression; it’s a question of shaping public opinion,” she claimed. Tondelier highlighted the growing concentration of media ownership in France and globally, accusing “ultra-rich individuals” of trying to “buy power” once they accumulate enough wealth.

“We also need to take social media into account in this calculation now. It is part of the fabrication of opinion. It has a grip on reality. It impacts election results,” she stated. “It’s dangerous because it’s a challenge to our democracies,” she added, suggesting a ban on X during sensitive periods, such as elections.

“The social network Twitter is not only annoying but also dangerous. The question of leaving it obviously arises, but it will not be enough: it must be banned,” she wrote in a post on X.

Tondelier also urged her partners from the left-wing New Popular Front (NPF) coalition, which won the most National Assembly seats in this summer’s legislative elections, to migrate to alternative networks.

“I’m going to leave, but what are the others doing? It will still have an impact on reality. It will still contribute to destabilizing the upcoming elections,” she said.

Musk provoked major controversy by claiming in December that “only the AfD can save Germany,” a statement some EU officials denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling. This followed an op-ed piece published by the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, in which he defended the right-wing party’s policies. Last week, Musk hosted an interview on X with Alice Weidel, the AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election.

Musk also clashed with former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, referring to him as “the tyrant of Europe,” after Breton appeared to endorse the cancellation of Romania’s presidential elections, warning about potential foreign interference in the upcoming German polls.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot recently voiced concerns about Musk’s influence, urging the European Commission to take a firmer stance and use existing mechanisms against alleged external meddling. Breton clarified that his remarks were aimed at ensuring compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act.

In recent weeks, the South African-born tech mogul also criticized British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of failing to tackle the Pakistani grooming gang issue and refusing to properly investigate the mass rape of underage girls while he was head of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013. He also urged Washington to step in and “liberate” the Brits from their “tyrannical government.”

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Candace Owens Responds To Mr. And Mr. Macron

Candace Show | January 13, 2025

I respond to the Macrons legal letter, Ian Carroll ratios Elon Musk on X, Mark Zuckerberg appears on Joe Rogan to discuss Biden censorship, and an update on what people are saying about the LA fires.

PreBorn!
To donate, dial pound 250 & say the keyword “BABY” that’s pound 250 “BABY” or donate securely at https://preborn.com/candace

PureTalk
Get 50% off your first month at http://www.PureTalk.com/Owens

American Financing
Act today! Call 800-795-1210 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Owens
NMLS 182334, http://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.458% for well qualified borrowers. Call 800-795-1210 for details about credit costs and terms.

Candace on Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/Pp5VZiLXbq
Candace on Spotify: https://t.co/16pMuADXuT
Candace on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RealCandaceO
Subscribe to Club Candace: https://www.clubcandace.com
Join The Candace Community on Locals: https://candace.locals.com

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Budapest: 2 more Antifa activists charged in brutal 2023 attacks

By Liz Heflin | Remix News | January 13, 2025

The Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office has indicted two more foreign citizens – a German and, in absentia, an Italian – who, as members of the far-left criminal organization, attacked Hungarians on the streets of Budapest in February 2023, reports Magyar Nemzet.

Between Feb. 9 and 11, 2023, five attacks were carried out by the so-called “Hammer Gang,” a sort of Antifa subsidiary with German roots known for using hammers to attack their victims, in the Hungarian capital, injuring nine, six of them seriously.

The attacks were organized and planned in advance. A lookout was set up to keep outsiders away while the other members of the group were responsible for carrying out the violence, armed with hammers.

According to the indictment, the German citizen participated in the attacks on Fővám Square, Gazdagréti Square and Bank Street, partly in the role of observer and follower, partly as an attacker and the Italian participated in the aggression on Gazdagréti and Mikó Street as an attacker.

The Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office charges the German citizen with four counts of attempted assault causing danger to life committed in a criminal organization – partly as an accomplice and partly as an accessory – and one count of attempted aggravated assault committed in a criminal organization for a vile reason. The Italian citizen is charged with three counts of attempted assault causing danger to life committed in a criminal organization and as an accomplice.

They are proposing a prison sentence and a fixed-term expulsion from Hungary.

Antifa also faces ongoing criminal proceedings in Germany for the attacks committed there between October 2018 and February 2020, and in the case of one defendant, for the attacks in Hungary.

Just this past November, authorities finally arrested the 31-year-old leader of the Hammer Gang in Germany, where he will be facing charges for crimes dating back to 2018, while another member was sentenced to three years in prison in Hungary earlier for his involvement in the Budapest attacks.

One member arrested in Budapest at the time of the attacks, Ilaria Salis was released from prison in Hungary after an Italian far-left party put her at the top of its European Parliament list in last summer’s elections and entered the European Parliament, thus gaining immunity.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

Musk calls out ‘tyrant of Europe’

RT | January 13, 2025

X owner Elon Musk has denounced former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton as “the tyrant of Europe” over an interview that appeared to endorse the cancelation of Romania’s presidential elections.

Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the vote last month, citing claims by intelligence services that the front-runner Calin Georgescu had been boosted by a Russian campaign on TikTok. It has since emerged that the campaign had been the work of a rival Romanian party, but the court has refused to reverse its ruling.

In an interview with the French outlet BFMTV/RMC last week, Breton appeared to suggest that the upcoming German elections could suffer the same fate should the Musk-endorsed Alternative for Germany (AfD) party emerge triumphant.

“Let’s stay calm and enforce the laws in Europe, when they risk being circumvented and if not enforced, could lead to interference,” Breton said. “It was done in Romania and obviously, it will have to be done, if necessary, in Germany as well.”

The minute-long video, in French, was shared by the Polish-based account ‘Visegrad24’, prompting Musk to reply, deriding “the staggering absurdity of Thierry Breton as the tyrant of Europe.”

Breton objected to the label on Saturday, however, arguing that he was only referring to online censorship through the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and that the EU “has NO mechanism to nullify any election” in the bloc. “Lost in translation… or another fake news?” he wondered on X.

While it was Visegrad24 that interpreted Breton’s comments as an endorsement of canceling elections, Breton’s clarification did not address the fact that the alleged “interference” in Romanian democracy came from the inside, making the judiciary intervention questionable. Musk said no more on the matter, however, having turned his attention to the wildfires ravaging Los Angeles.

Breton’s initial remarks came in response to Musk’s interview on X with Alice Weidel, AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election. Musk has endorsed her party and urged the Germans to oust the sitting Chancellor Olaf Scholz, which some EU officials have denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling.

The Frenchman was the EU commissioner for Digital Affairs and Internal Markets in August, when he threatened Musk with penalties over an upcoming X interview with Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate for US president.

When Musk threatened to expose “secret deals” the EU offered in exchange for censorship on X, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed the French commissioner had acted on his own. Breton resigned in September, accusing the Brussels leadership of “questionable governance.”

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Tipping point: Zuckerberg dumps “fact-checkers”, allows immigration talk, copies X and moves team from CA to Texas

Suddenly free speech is cool again

By Jo Nova | January 8, 2025

This is not the Tipping Point they were expecting.

Now that the election is safely over, Mark Zuckerberg, the coward, admits that censorship went too far and free speech is important. He’s decided that Facebook and Instagram will drop the third party “fact checkers” that crushed content and banned people because the “fact checkers” made too many mistakes. (Of course, he doesn’t admit that these were not mistakes at all, but entirely the plan.)

As David Evans (the other half) says “Reminds me of 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. It was the end of another leftist regime based on censorship and cancelling.  The good news just kept on coming.”

It’s a very limited mea culpa — it was  just good intentions and a bit of scope creep you know…

It’s not like he was interfering in elections, tilting the balance to buy political protection,  increase his profits, or score points at dinner parties with billionaire friends.

From the Press Release:

More Speech and Fewer Mistakes

In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms, partly in response to societal and political pressure to moderate content. This approach has gone too far. As well-intentioned as many of these efforts have been, they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable.

And it was only “harmless content” that was lost  and a bit of frustration was caused —  it’s not like people died, wallowed in jail, or got attacked by illegal immigrants due to their loss of free speech:

Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in “Facebook jail,” and we are often too slow to respond when they do.

The Fact Checkers turned out to have their own biases:

If his plan was to give more expert opinions so “the people could judge” it does seem odd that they hired 20 year old nobodies with no qualifications to censor Harvard Professors in medicine.

The intention of the program was to have these independent experts give people more information about the things they see online, particularly viral hoaxes, so they were able to judge for themselves what they saw and read.

We’re not buying this miracle, Zuck, of how the people were supposed to be able to judge what they couldn’t see and never read…

It was just terribly bad luck the fact checkers all happened to support the same side of politics that Zuckerberg donated $400 million dollars to in 2020:

That’s not the way things played out, especially in the United States. Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about what to fact check and how. Over time we ended up with too much content being fact checked that people would understand to be legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and reduced distribution. A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.

He openly admits that the Twitter community notes policy is much better and will adopt it

It’s unusual in the business world to see someone copy a competitor (and openly say so):

We plan to phase in Community Notes in the US first over the next couple of months, and will continue to improve it over the course of the year. As we make the transition, we will get rid of our fact-checking control, stop demoting fact checked content and, instead of overlaying full screen interstitial warnings you have to click through before you can even see the post, we will use a much less obtrusive label indicating that there is additional information for those who want to see it.

And unusual too, that his competitor is happy. Elon Musk says “This is cool”.

And also like Musk, Zuckerberg is sending the policy brains team to Texas —  realizing ten years too late, that the Californian bubble is not the place to connect with most Americans:

… we will be moving the trust and safety teams that write our content policies and review content out of California to Texas and other US locations.

Suddenly people will be able to discuss immigration and gender identity

Just toss those sacred cows out the window…

We want to undo the mission creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement. We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms. These policy changes may take a few weeks to be fully implemented.

How telling that he picks these topics. Immigration, especially is the hot button issue in the US, UK and Europe. This change will come through in mere weeks, he says, leaving us wondering if Zuckerberg suddenly realized Facebook and Instagram were in danger of being 100% irrelevant in the real world. A cruel observer might say that his interest in free speech was purely profit driven (or an act of desperation).

When will he let people discuss their medical experiences?

At ZeroHedge, they point out that it’s just over a month since Zuckerberg met Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and only one day after one of Trump’s closest allies joined the board of Facebook — the UFC CEO Dana White. Perhaps Trump gave him one last chance (with conditions)?

It’s all a step in the right direction. But after censoring ICU Specialists who were trying to save lives and who turned out to be right, Zuckerberg is going to have to do a lot more than mouthing the weak words of “mistakes”. The nicest possible interpretation is that as a mere double-digit billionaire, (unlike Musk) Zuckerberg was squeezed by the Blob until he complied. The US government could have put him out of business in five minutes if he offended them. But where is that story? His country — the world — really needs to hear the real mea culpa.

Nothing can compensate for the damage to lives that could have been avoided, but there are plenty of people out whose losses can be cut quickly:

— Jason Olbourne – (The Daily Australian) (@JasonQCitizen1) January 7, 2025

As Zuckerberg avoids a prison cell announcing the end of fact checkers and vastly reducing censorship, I am still waiting for my ‘appeal’ against a heinous false charge with no evidence, no due process and no way to get in touch which disabled 17 years worth of work, the past ten…

 

Letting all those people out of Facebook jail would be a start.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Leave a comment

Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.

The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.

Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.

So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”

But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”

Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.

Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.

One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.

As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.

Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.

And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.

Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.

Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.

For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.

Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 11, 2025

In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.

“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.

This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.

Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”

The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.

Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

See also: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

Berlin Police hunt down those responsible for leaked list of New Year’s Eve suspects dominated by foreigners

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 9, 2025

The publication of a list containing the first names of 256 suspects arrested by Berlin police on New Year’s Eve has sparked an internal investigation into a security leak.

The list, published by German media outlet Nius, pertains to those apprehended after mass civil unrest in the German capital after New Year’s celebrations turned sour and migrant-fueled violence erupted with fireworks launched at police and into residential buildings.

As Remix News previously reported, the authorities’ own data showed 670 suspects in total had been arrested — 406 had a German passport and 264 were foreign nationals.

German police do not publish data identifying the nationalities of suspects, but a list of the “German” suspects, which included a plethora of foreign names including Abdul Kerim, Abdulhamid, Abdulkadir, Ali, Hassan, and Mohammed in its various spellings, managed to make headlines.

Nius, run by Bild’s former editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt, estimated that 65 percent of those in the German bracket had first names “that are clearly of non-German origin.”

The authorities are now reportedly on the warpath to track down those responsible for the leak.

The Department for Police and Corruption Crimes at the Berlin State Criminal Police Office has been tasked with identifying the source, police spokesperson Florian Nath confirmed to Tagesspiegel.

“Our Police and Corruption Crimes Department is investigating the suspect who may have illegally extracted and released lists of names from protected, internal police systems,” Nath said, adding that the authorities will always pursue “the release of personal data without any legal basis.”

The police spokesperson described the release as an unauthorized and unacceptable violation of data protection laws that promotes a “disproportionate and discriminatory approach to explaining criminal behavior.”

Berlin Police did not deny the authenticity of the list.

The response by the authorities has drawn strong criticism in some quarters with journalist Birgit Kelle writing on X: “In Berlin, people would rather investigate colleagues in their own ranks who tell the population the unvarnished truth about the cultural origins of the city’s criminals than criminals themselves.”

Prior to the leak, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group in Berlin had submitted a parliamentary query demanding the names of the suspects be released.

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel had also weighed in, sharing the leaked list on social media and stating that it “speaks for itself.” She further insisted that “foreign violent criminals” who endanger lives have “forfeited their right to hospitality and must be deported.”

Investigations into the leak have also been discussed politically at state level with left-wing politician Niklas Schrader announcing plans to address the matter in the Berlin Senate’s Interior Committee.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Newsom Defends Wildfire Response, Tells Biden Online “Misinformation” Needs to be Combatted

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 10, 2025

Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) shifted focus to combating “misinformation” during a briefing on the devastating wildfires ravaging Los Angeles. The session included President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, with Newsom and Bass addressing concerns over their administration’s preparedness as the fires claimed at least 10 lives and destroyed countless homes.

Conducted in a hybrid format, the meeting saw Biden and Harris in the Oval Office while Newsom, Bass, and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell joined via video call. Newsom described the unprecedented destruction fueled by what he called “hurricane-force winds, the likes of which we’ve never imagined in our lifetime.” He then pivoted to warn about the spread of misinformation related to the disaster.

“We’ve got to deal with this misinformation. There were hurricane-force winds of mis- and disinformation — lies,” Newsom stated. “People want to divide this country, and we’re gonna have to address that as well. And it breaks my heart, as people are suffering and struggling that we’re up against those hurricane force forces as well.”

Expressing frustration, Newsom added, “And that’s just a point of personal privilege that I share that with you because it infects real people that are out there. People I meet every single day, people the mayor has been meeting with, and they’re having conversations that are not the typical conversations you’d have at this time be in. And you wonder where this stuff comes from, and it’s very damaging as well, but we’re here to get the job done; to be here for folks to focus.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing a barrage of criticism from various quarters, highlighting several contentious issues, particularly related to a lack of preparation for combatting wildfires under his governance.

Newsom’s timing is ironic as Biden has been criticized heavily today for his previous attempts to police “misinformation” online.

On the same day Newsom appealed to Biden about online “misinformation,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg disclosed on The Joe Rogan Experience that the Biden administration pressured his company to censor COVID-19-related content, including truthful criticism of the vaccines.

Zuckerberg revealed that officials would “call up our team and scream at them and curse” over certain posts. A notable incident involved demands to remove a meme.

Zuckerberg emphasized, “Basically, it just got to this point where we were like no, we’re not going to take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.”

This revelation, although not new, highlights a troubling pattern of government pressure on tech companies to suppress speech, raising serious concerns about censorship and the erosion of free expression. As wildfires continue to devastate communities, efforts to control narratives under the guise of combating misinformation risk silencing legitimate discourse. The public’s right to transparent and open communication remains more critical than ever in times of national emergencies.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

Musk’s X should be banned in Poland during election campaign, says journalist on state-run television

Remix News | January 10, 2025

In the TVP Info program, journalist Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf, who hosts major television shows on the state-run network, suggested that the authorities should completely shutdown the X portal during the presidential election campaign, which would amount to a form of mass censorship not seen in Poland since communist times.

“We live in a situation where disinformation can come to us not only from the East, but the West can also poison us with content that will have nothing to do with the truth,” said Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf.

The shocking suggestion was made on the “Dangerous Liaisons” program, which is broadcast by state-run TVP Info. Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf’s guests were Prof. Anna Siewierska-Chmaj from the University of Rzeszów and Dr. Katarzyna Bąkowicz from SWPS, according to Polish outlet Do Rzeczy.

In response, Dr. Katarzyna Bąkowicz said: “We know that there are organized criminal groups that spread disinformation. It’s not just Russia or China. We have to remember that disinformation has become an element of political struggle. What Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who joined in, are doing is opening Pandora’s box.”

Prof. Anna Siewierska-Chmaj responded with what appeared to be supportive statements, saying that Elon Musk does not hide the fact that he is fascinated by European politics and wants to change it, with Musk’s comments about Great Britain the latest example.

“What shocks me the most is Germany and its support for the post-fascist AfD, and we should be afraid of that,” said Wysocka-Schnepf.

“Of course, the AfD’s victory fuels the Polish right, so it is de facto influencing the Polish elections,” replied Prof. Siewierska-Chmaj.

Then, the journalist’s shocking words about the need to consider closing Musk’s portal for the duration of the election campaign were uttered.

“We are in such a situation, more and more countries are announcing the closure of TikTok for fear of Chinese propaganda, so should we seriously consider that maybe X should be closed for the duration of the election campaign,” said Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf.

“This would be a very radical solution… but we need to think about regulating this area,” replied Dr. Bąkowicz.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

150 EU officials expected to monitor Elon Musk conversation with Alice Weidel, possible ban on the table

Remix News | January 9, 2025

The European Union’s outrage is only growing over a planned interview hosted by Elon Musk later today with Alternative for Germany (AfD) party co-chair Alice Weidel. Now, Politico is reporting that 150 EU officials are expected to attend the conversation between Musk and Weidel for the purpose of learning whether X is complying with EU rules. In addition, French politicians are already talking about an EU-wide ban.

The claim is that there are fears that Musk’s team will manipulate the algorithm to provide the interview more attention. However, Musk has over 200 million followers and nearly all of his posts receive millions and often tens of millions of views, which makes it certain that the interview, which has also been widely advertised, will receive significant attention.

Weidel has also taken to X about the surveillance of the upcoming interview.

“Big Brother is watching you: 150 EU officials are supposed to monitor my conversation with @elonmusk. An EU that uses its bureaucracy to exercise censorship on social media is instilling the spirit of unfreedom. The #dsa threatens democracy!” she wrote

The officials overseeing the interview are “given relatively extensive power,” according to Politico. They will be able to use, among other things, the Digital Services Act (DSA) to monitor how the algorithm works and how content is being displayed to users.

Politico writes that Musk allegedly pushed certain posts in the past, including one about the Super Bowl in the past. The alleged reason was that Musk was mad that one of President Biden’s posts were getting more attention.

The EU officials are working with experts from the European Center for Algorithmic Transparency” in Seville to determine if such an action will occur once again. However, they will not release this information immediately. Instead, it will like be added to a general procedure against X.

A wide range of EU leaders fear losing power due to shifting public sentiment, and Musk’s X represents their top threat. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, on Wednesday, called for a decisive stand against political influence. When asked whether a ban on X, in the same style as Brazil, was possible, he responded: “That is possible under our laws.”

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez also claimed Musk was pushing “hate” and warned against the rise of fascism in Europe.

SPD General-Secretary Matthias Miersch said that Musk’s influence on Germany’s elections now “call into question the foundations of democracy.”

However, Musk is unlikely to manipulate the algorithm in favor of Weidel especially when enough people are already likely to watch the interview without any interference. Absent some overt manipulation, it is unclear what could possibly be illegal about such an interview. Musk is allowed to interview Weidel. That is his right and her right. The bigger problem would be if he censored anyone who criticized such an interview or manipulated the algorithm to suppress this criticism, which is undoubtedly what the old Twitter regime did before his purchase — all of which the EU actively supported

The head of Germany’s Federal Network Agency, Klaus Müller, appeared to take a more measured approach to the issue.

“Not everything that you get upset about is also illegal,” said Müller on Thursday morning on Deutschlandfunk. “In election campaigns, you also have to put up with things that you personally find inappropriate, indecent or unacceptable.” Freedom of expression always means “the freedom of those whose opinion you do not share.”

He said that the excitement over the Musk interview was “understandable” but it must first be observed whether any laws are actually broken during the process. He noted, however, that people could choose simply not to listen to the interview.

January 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »