Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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 | , , , | Leave a 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 | , , | Leave a 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

Operation Choke Point 2.0 (2023)

Corbett | January 7, 2025

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

WATCH ON: ARCHIVE / BITCHUTE / ODYSEE / RUMBLE / RUMBLE / SUBSTACK or download the MP3 AUDIO

From 2013: The specter of Operation Choke Point 2.0 has just been raised in a recent House Financial Services Committee meeting. But what was Operation Choke Point 1.0? And why should we be concerned about this latest attempt to debank “disfavoured individuals,” anyway? Find out all the details in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report podcast.

FLASHBACK SHOW NOTES:

FinTech CEOs Expose How Feds Colluded In ‘Debanking’ Schemes After Andreessen ‘Opened The Floodgates’ On Rogan

Operation Choke Point 2.0: How the Feds Are Seeking to ‘Debank’ Targeted Industries

What is Operation Choke Point 2.0? Trump vows to end it

“Operation Chokepoint 2.0”: De-Banking Policies and the Adverse Use of Reputational Risk in Bank Supervision

Proof of Operation Chokepoint 2.0

Choke Point: How the Government Will Control the Cashless Economy

Episode 440 – Operation Choke Point 2.0

PODCAST SHOW NOTES:

Watch: Federal Reserve head is questioned on controversial “debanking of disfavored individuals”

Choke Point: How the Government Will Control the Cashless Economy

Episode 394 – Solutions: Survival Currency

Become a Corbett Report member and help support this work

Banks have started to freeze accounts linked to the protests, Freeland says

Episode 413 – Give Send Gone

Operation Choke Point 2.0 Is Underway, And Crypto Is In Its Crosshairs

Federal Reserve Says Custodia’s Plans Would Endanger Itself and the Crypto Industry

Episode 394 – Solutions: Survival Currency

How to Win the War on Cash

Fight the Banksters with Cash Friday – #SolutionsWatch

Black Market Fridays – #SolutionsWatch

January 9, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Germany: Green-led agency warns Facebook of potential sanctions after Zuckerberg says he will end censorship regime

Remix News | January 8, 2025

Germany and the European Union are in an uproar after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he was going to take efforts to end censorship on Facebook and Instagram, including the termination of Meta’s relationship with fact-checkers who Zuckerberg accused of political bias.

Given that much of the EU power runs on political censorship, Brussels and member states like Germany are worried they might lose control of the political narrative, especially when left-liberal leaders are falling from power across the Western world.

The Federal Network Agency in Germany, which reports to German Economic Minister Robert Habeck, is threatening that Facebook could more likely face sanctions if it does not continue its “fact checking” relationship with controversial organizations like Correctiv, known for its hit pieces on the Alternative for Germany (AfD).

The Green Federal Network Agency boss is threatening Facebook with sanctions if it does not resume working with “fact checkers” such as “Correctiv”. This has led to censorship on a large scale, as Zuckerberg admitted.

Klaus Müller, of the Greens and who runs the Federal Network Agency, wrote on X on Wednesday morning according to the Digital Service Act (DSA), “the cooperation of very large online platforms with fact-checking organizations is not mandatory, but their risk of sanctions is reduced if they do so in the EU.” EU election guidelines also note that the presence of fact checkers is considered “a risk-minimizing measure in elections” with regard to “systemic risks.”

“If a (Very Large Online Provider) VLOP does not work with fact checkers, it must prove that it is taking other, equally effective risk-minimizing measures,” he further wrote.

Zuckerberg admits that these fact-checkers have helped drive a regime of censorship on his platform. He notes that these organizations have exerted pressure to “censor more and more.”

However, German media reports that Facebook is still currently working with Correctiv. It is unclear when that relationship will end — if ever.

Zuckerberg says he now wants to switch to a community notes system like the one deployed by Elon Musk on X. Notably, he wants to lift restrictions on certain issues, such as immigration and gender issues, and adjust filters to allow free expression on the platform.

As Remix News reported, our own news site has come under attack from Facebook censors in the past, reducing our reach from millions of views a week to a few thousand a week as of now.

January 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Telegram supported freedom of speech when it was less ‘safe’ – Durov

RT | January 8, 2025

It’s easy to support freedom of speech when one doesn’t have to face any risks for doing so, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov wrote on Wednesday, in a post on his messenger platform. The entrepreneur was apparently commenting on recent announcements by Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads – which has announced some major policy changes.

On Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that his company would ditch its controversial third-party fact-checking program in the US. He admitted that such services did more harm than good, as they “shut out people with different ideas.” He also said that Donald Trump’s victory in the November presidential elections was one of the developments that prompted the policy change.

Zuckerberg called the recent US elections a “tipping point” towards prioritizing freedom of speech, and vowed to reduce censorship.

“It’s easy to say you support something when you risk nothing,” Durov wrote in his Telegram post the next day, adding that some “platforms are announcing they’ll now have less censorship.” He did not cite Meta by name in his post, though.

Those making such changes only now would face a “real test of their newly discovered values” when “the political winds change again,” the Telegram CEO predicted, adding that his company’s values “don’t depend on US electoral cycles.”

“I’m proud that Telegram has supported freedom of speech, long before it became politically safe to do so,” Durov said.

His words came just a week after the Telegram CEO himself said that his platform was facing certain restrictions in the EU due to anti-Russia sanctions. At that time, Durov stated that Russians had more media freedom than Europeans did, given that all Western media outlets were “freely accessible” on Telegram in Russia while “certain Russian media has been restricted in the EU under DSA/sanctions laws.”

Durov also faced major legal challenges in the EU last year. The Russian entrepreneur, who is also a citizen of France, the UAE, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, was detained in France and faced 12 criminal charges, including complicity in distributing child pornography, drug dealing, and money laundering. French authorities claimed that Telegram’s supposedly lax moderation rules had allowed criminals to flourish on the platform.

The businessman was released on bail but barred from leaving France. In September 2024, he announced an update to Telegram’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which would make it clear that that IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate the messenger’s rules “can be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.” In October of the same year, he also admitted that the platform had already been sharing such information with relevant authorities, as it had been possible to do so since 2018.

January 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer’s Censorship Playbook

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 8, 2025

At a time when public trust already teeters on a knife’s edge, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has decided that what we really need is a lecture on “misinformation.” Yes, the same Starmer who spent years navigating political quagmires with the dexterity of a politician reading polling data, and someone accused of lying to the public in the manifesto that got him elected, now fancies himself the arbiter of “truth” and “decency.” And what better way to assert moral authority than by weaponizing one of Britain’s darkest scandals—the rape gang crises—and reframing criticism of government failures as the “poison of the far-Right”?

Criticism: The New Extremism

During his January 6 press conference, Starmer ditched accountability in favor of a moral crusade against critics. He accused them of peddling “lies,” “misinformation,” and—brace yourself—aligning with the “far-right.” “We’ve seen this playbook many times,” Starmer said, oozing conviction.

But the public has seen his playbook too.

If you express concern about how successive governments ignored victims, allowed systemic failures to fester, and dragged their feet on justice, you’re basically a neo-Nazi. Starmer’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand here is stunning—turning widespread outrage into something inherently sinister.

By lumping legitimate grievances in with the ravings of extremists, he effectively tars everyone with the same brush. Victims and their advocates? Extremists. Grassroots activists demanding reforms? Extremists. It’s a brilliant move if your goal is to shut down meaningful conversation while appearing noble.

Blaming Musk: A Modern-Day Scapegoat

But Starmer wasn’t done. Enter the obligatory bogeyman of modern discourse: Elon Musk. When the X owner criticized MP Jess Phillips for refusing to support a public inquiry into the grooming gang scandals, Starmer leaped at the opportunity to accuse him of endangering her safety. Musk, Starmer implied, had crossed some vague and undefinable “dangerous threshold” by calling out a politician’s inaction.

There’s no denying threats against MPs are a serious matter, especially in today’s climate, but let’s not pretend Musk was personally drafting hate mail. Criticism of public officials, even harsh criticism, isn’t equivalent to endorsing violence. Yet, Starmer’s play here is clear: frame dissent as inherently harmful and wrap it in the protective cloak of “safety.” It’s a chillingly effective tactic that sets the stage for conflating free speech with hate speech—a distinction that seems increasingly inconvenient for those in power.

The New Gatekeepers of “Decency”

Starmer’s framing of these issues points to a larger, more insidious trend: the slow, deliberate erosion of public discourse under the guise of safeguarding “truth” and “decency.” Dissenting voices are no longer just misguided or even wrong—they’re now dangerous, toxic, and unworthy of a platform.

What makes this particularly egregious is the context. The grooming gang scandals are a grotesque example of institutional failure. Victims were ignored for years as authorities feared accusations of racism, prioritizing optics over justice.

What Starmer presents as a defense of democracy is, in fact, a calculated effort to consolidate narrative control. If criticism can be dismissed as “far-Right poison,” then any dissenting voice—no matter how valid—can be silenced without debate.

Sliding Toward Silence

Starmer’s approach represents the classic slippery slope of censorship. First, the extremists are silenced (fair enough, many argue). Then, the vaguely problematic voices are muted. Finally, anyone who veers too far from the approved script is deemed an enemy of “truth.”

This isn’t only about online discourse or high-profile figures like Musk. It’s about ordinary people—victims, activists, and concerned citizens—who now risk being labeled as agitators simply for demanding accountability.

The Real Threat: Manufactured Consensus

Starmer’s insistence on equating criticism with extremism creates a vacuum where only the government’s narrative is allowed to thrive. And when the only voices left are the ones singing praises of the status quo, we’re no longer talking about democracy; we’re talking about a PR campaign with parliamentary decorum.

James Cleverly, former Home Secretary, didn’t mince words when he weighed in on the fiasco, summing up what many in Britain are quietly, or not-so-quietly, thinking. “Accusing those who disagree with him, or who seek legitimate answers about repeated failures of child protection, as ‘far-Right’ is deeply insulting and counterproductive,” Cleverly said, in a rare moment of plain speaking from a political figure.

As Cleverly pointed out, branding dissent as extremism doesn’t bridge divisions; it widens them, pouring accelerant on an already polarized public square.

Maggie Oliver, the whistleblower who exposed the Rochdale scandal, spoke for many when she called Starmer’s remarks “insulting in the extreme.” Oliver, who resigned from Greater Manchester Police in protest over their inaction, knows better than most how hard it is to get the system to listen. To see campaigners lumped in with extremists, she argued, “sets a terrifying precedent.”

The “Misinformation” Blueprint: Starmer’s New Censorship Arsenal

If Prime Minister Starmer’s handling of criticism over the UK’s rape gang scandal feels less like leadership and more like a prelude to mass censorship, that’s because it likely is. With the newly minted Online Safety Act and provisions under the National Security Act 2023, Starmer’s buzzword-heavy rhetoric about “misinformation” starts looking less like clumsy damage control and more like the calculated groundwork for a chilling clampdown on dissent.

For years, “misinformation” has been a convenient scapegoat for governments worldwide to suppress inconvenient truths. Now, in the UK, the term threatens to become a legal cudgel, ready to pummel any narrative that strays too far from the government-approved script.

Weaponizing the Online Safety Act

Starmer doesn’t need to introduce sweeping new legislation to suppress dissent—his government already has a powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Online Safety Act, sold to the public as a safeguard against harm, contains provisions that are broad enough to suppress not only malicious lies but also legitimate criticism under the guise of protecting the public. Here’s how it could play out:

1. Section 179: False Communications Offense

This is where Starmer’s “misinformation” rhetoric gets teeth. Section 179 criminalizes knowingly false communications intended to cause “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.” The wording here is as vague as it is dangerous. What qualifies as “non-trivial psychological harm”? If the government decides that criticisms of its handling of the grooming gang scandal cause emotional distress to MPs—or, conveniently, to the public—it could label them as harmful misinformation.

Imagine this: a social media user accuses Starmer’s government of ignoring systemic abuse in grooming gang cases. Even if the criticism is grounded in fact, the government could argue that the way it’s framed constitutes psychological harm. Once flagged, tech platforms—obligated under the Online Safety Act to prevent such offenses—could preemptively remove posts or ban users entirely.

The chilling effect is immediate. Knowing the penalties—up to 51 weeks in prison and unlimited fines—citizens may think twice before questioning the government on sensitive issues. And that’s the goal: silence through fear.

2. Schedule 7, Section 37: Foreign Interference

The National Security Act 2023 adds another weapon to Starmer’s arsenal: the foreign interference clause. This provision criminalizes any “misrepresentation” on behalf of a foreign power, even if the information shared is true. While the law ostensibly targets foreign espionage, its scope is alarmingly wide.

Starmer could use this to neutralize high-profile international critics like Elon Musk. If Musk’s tweets about UK safeguarding policies are deemed to influence British political discourse, Starmer’s government could accuse him of “foreign interference.” The penalties? Up to 14 years in prison for violators and mandatory platform censorship of related content.

Any UK citizen amplifying criticism that the government ties to a foreign agenda—whether real or imagined—could face scrutiny under this Orwellian provision.

3. Section 152: Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation

Perhaps the most insidious element of the Online Safety Act is the creation of a disinformation advisory committee under Ofcom. This unelected body will have the power to define what counts as “misinformation,” aligning platforms’ moderation policies with government narratives.

Given Starmer’s framing of dissent as extremist “poison,” it’s easy to imagine how this committee could become a government lapdog. If dissenting views about rape gang scandals—or any politically sensitive issue—are labeled misinformation, platforms would have little choice but to silence those voices.

4. Section 165: Media Literacy

Ofcom’s mandate to promote media literacy sounds harmless enough, but in practice, it’s a PR goldmine for governments looking to control narratives. Imagine a state-backed campaign equating criticism of the grooming gang scandal to conspiracy theories, painting dissenters as dangerous purveyors of hate. This would prime the public to distrust any view that deviates from the official line, effectively preempting free debate.

Starmer’s Record: A Preview of What’s to Come

Starmer’s embrace of censorship isn’t theoretical—it’s historical. When riots broke out in the summer of 2023, his government oversaw the arrest of individuals for inflammatory social media posts. While some cases involved genuine incitement, others targeted people simply expressing anger at systemic failures or “misinformation.” The precedent was clear: if your post made the government uncomfortable, you were a target.

Fast forward to today, and Starmer’s buzzword-laden rhetoric—“misinformation,” “extremism,” “poison”—looks suspiciously like a blueprint for round two. His invocation of these terms isn’t casual; it’s calculated. Each one is a trigger for the machinery of censorship already baked into British law.

January 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »